Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Motorways (Central Barriers)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport what arrangement he is making for increasing the width of new motorway central reserves to permit the effective use of rosa multiflora japonica bushes to prevent serious accidents on the motorways; and if he will make a statement of the progress so far made in relation to other central barriers which have been provided and are to be provided on motorways.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Motorway central reserves would need to be increased to about four times their present width to accommodate a worth-while thickness of this bush. We could not justify this. It would add considerably to construction costs and would take up further valuable agricultural land.
As regards progress on other types of central barriers, I cannot add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) on 27th November, 1963.

Sir B. Janner: What does the Minister mean by the width which, he says, is required for the purpose of these bushes? Is he aware that that is not the case in countries where these bushes are used? As to expense, is it not extremely important that we should use devices which will save life and limb, even though they might cost somewhat more? Is the Minister aware that the use of rose bushes for these purposes is being increased in many countries? Cannot he do something about it here?

Mr. Galbraith: While I agree with the hon. Member that we must do everything we can to prevent accidents, the central reserves in this country are 13 ft. wide and our information is that, for bushes of this kind to grow satisfactorily, the reserves would have to be about 52 ft. wide, or four times as great. This would add over £110,000 a mile to the cost of roads and I do not think that this would be justified.

The Hartlepools (Communications)

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he intends to improve road communications for The Hartlepools in a westerly direction.

Mr. Galbraith: The special additional roads programme for the North-East announced in the Government's White Paper last November includes improvement of the A.689 which links The Hartlepools with the A.19 and Tees-side, and improvement of communications between Tees-side and Darlington.
Our divisional road engineer is discussing with the Durham County Council a working programme for the carrying out of improvement schemes. We would hope that a start on this could be made in a year or two.

Commander Kerans: Will not my hon. Friend agree that proper communications from the Hartlepools to the A.1 are absolutely vital in order to attract industry to the area? So far we have had many Government promises, but very little progress is visible on the spot. Will he do his best to improve the situation right now and not in years ahead?

Mr. Galbraith: As I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates, it is not possible to start everything everywhere right now.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the last seven years, I have constantly raised the question of the improvement of the A.19 and that on several occasions the Minister has promised to go ahead with it? Now we are told that it is to be started in a year or two. Is that reasonable?

Mr. Galbraith: I think it most reasonable.

Gateshead (Western Bypass)

Mr. Woof: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects work to commence on the western bypass through Gateshead County Borough and Whickham urban district linking up with the new Scotswood Bridge.

Mr. Galbraith: A scheme to provide a better link between the A.1, the Team Valley Trading Estate and Scotswood Bridge is included in the special additional roads programme for the North East announced in the Government's White Paper last November.
Our divisional road engineer is discussing with the Durham County Council the programming of this scheme. A good deal of survey and design work has to be done. Land will have to be acquired. But all concerned will press on with this as quickly as possible and we hope that work can start within four or five years.

Mr. Woof: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the best available assessment for this project is that it is likely to cost £4 million and will provide bady needed employment in that area? Does not he agree that it is urgent to develop this road programme in order to enable the authorities to raise the standard of urban environment and traffic planning? Does not he also agree that such effective development is also urgent to give inducement to new industrial and commercial interests and for achieving better access to industrial sites, particularly in the Blaydon area? Will he undertake to bring this programme forward to a much earlier date?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that I disagree with practically anything the hon. Gentleman has said, but while I am fully sympathetic with his point of view, I regret that we cannot bring this forward any faster than we are doing.

Roads, Cleethorpes (Speed Limit)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Transport why he has refused the Cleethorpes Borough Council's proposal to enforce a 30 miles per hour limit from Hewitts Circus for the full length of Grimsby Road, and North Sea Lane, in view of the fact that there

have been an increasing number of serious and fatal accidents; if he will review his decision; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Galbraith: We refused to entertain a proposal for an extension of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit for 174 yards along Humberston Road for the reasons set out in my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary's letter of 13th June, 1963. Since consent was refused in April, 1963, there has been no increase in the frequency of accidents. We have now consented to the making of an Order to impose a 40 m.p.h. speed limit between the bridge over Buck Beck and a point 200 yards west of the junction of Church Lane and North Sea Lane.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the reasons given in his letter were not satisfactory? Is he further aware that there have been a lot of accidents since I have received it and that my constituents are very worried about this stretch of road? Will he send another official to look at it more sympathetically and give us a better offer?

Mr. Galbraith: My information shows that accidents have been declining. There were 10 in 1960, 5 in 1961, 5 in 1962 and 4 in 1963. One of these involved a gill jumping off a moving bus and another a dog being run over, so I do not think that I can agree with my hon. Friend.

Holton-le-Clay (Bypass)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give instructions for the immediate construction of the bypass at Holton-le-Clay, near Grimsby, in view of the increasing number of serious and fatal accidents on the long winding road through the village, and of the petition signed by 631 residents which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Louth; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Galbraith: We accept the need for the bypass and are authorising a survey of the route although we have not yet been able to find a place for the scheme in our trunk road programme. As more immediate measures, we are considering the imposition of a


speed limit and improvements to give better visibility at junctions in the village.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that I resent his reply that a girl was hurt merely because she jumped off a bus and that a dog was run over? Is he aware that people are being killed on this stretch of road and that my constituents do not take a funny view of that? Will he see that more money is available to the local authorities to build this bypass at once?

Mr. Galbraith: We certainly will do the best we can with the bypass. I think that the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question refers to Question No. 10, which we have already passed.

Trunk Roads, East and West Ridings

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report from Messrs. Scott and Wilson, Kirkpatrick and Partners with regard to the present and future trunk road requirements in the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire between the Great North Road and the port of Hull.

Mr. Galbraith: By the middle of April.

Sir L. Ropner: Is my hon. Friend aware that waiting for this report has served as another excuse for neglecting the problems presented by the Selby Toll Bridge? Will he give an assurance that, as soon as the report is received, immediate action will be taken to relieve Selby of this long-standing scandal?

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot accept that this is an excuse for delay in dealing with Selby Toll Bridge, but I cannot give the undertaking my hon. and gallant Friend seeks because we must see what is in the report before we decide what to do.

Mr. J. T. Price: I have previously had the pleasure of supporting the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) on the question of the public scandal represented by the Selby Toll Bridge. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both the present Minister and his predecessors have been giving lame excuses in this House in order to

avoid taking any action on the abolition of the Selby Toll Bridge? Is it not time the Government cleared up this matter and gave some heed to the protests which have constantly been made in this House during my service as an hon. Member?

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking to provide a high-class road between Hull and the Great North Road and that is precisely what he is going to do.

Parking Meter Charges

Mr. Hirst: asked the Minister of Transport what stage has been reached in his consideration of the possible adjustment of parking meter charges; and what procedure is to be adopted regarding the consideration of objections to proposals to increase charges, and requirements for public advertisement of such increase.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am considering the comments of local authorities and others on all my proposals for improving the effectiveness of existing parking meter schemes in London, including the adjustment—up and down—of some meter charges. I expect to be able to make a statement shortly.
Specific proposals for altering charges will be publicly advertised as the Road Traffic Acts require, and I shall take objections into consideration.

Mr. Hirst: I thank my right hon. Friend for that valuable assurance, which is most helpful, but will he bear in mind that any proposal to increase parking meter charges, which I believe has been suggested in certain cases in the West End by as much as fourfold, would lead to a considerable amount of resentment among the motoring public and would be grossly unfair?

Mr. Marples: Each proposal will have to be judged on its merits and according to the evidence which is placed before me both by the applicant local authority and by individual objectors, who will have an opportunity to state their cases and give reasons why they wish a change to be made.

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the advantage of having much shorter parking periods at meters so that these can


be used genuinely by short-term parkers and not as they are often now, and will be with higher charges, by commuters who are prepared to move their cars every two hours?

Mr. Marples: I shall certainly consider a shorter period, and that idea was included in the pamphlet which my Ministry sent to local authorities. The House must realise that until it costs more to park on the street than to park off the street people will continue to park on the street, to the detriment of moving traffic.

Captain Lichfield: Can my right hon. Friend say what progress is being made with his scheme for issuing parking licences to bona fide residents in residential areas which are zoned, or, alternatively, to permit local residents whose roads are metered to park for longer periods?

Mr. Marples: That is one of the points of principle mentioned in the pamphlet which the Ministry sent to local authorities. I asked each local authority to formulate proposals for its own area if it thought they were desirable. This is a local problem because each locality varies enormously, and I hope that local authorities will bring forward some such schemes for improvements, and we shall see what we can do when we get the objections to, and the support for, them.

Accidents

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Transport what consideration he is giving to bringing into operation some of the Continental practices devised to prevent road accidents.

Mr. Marples: Our aim is to adopt any Continental road safety measures that would be suitable for this country and there are close contacts at all levels.

Mr. Bence: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider using the Italian system or issuing a red triangle to a motorist, which he puts down 50 metres behind him when he stops in the carriageway for any purpose whatsoever?

Mr. Marples: I am proposing to make regulations which will permit drivers to put up special signs in an emergency.

Mr. Gower: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can explain why we lumber along without any clear priorities at roundabouts? Does my right hon. Friend realise how many accidents are caused by two motorists approaching the same roundabout each assuming that he has priority'?

Mr. Marples: As my hon. Friend has probably seen, we are carrying out experiments giving priority to traffic coming from the right at certain rounda-abouts, and the Road Research Laboratory is seeing what the results of these experiments will be. If they prove to be favourable we shall consider extending them further.

Road Junction, Liverpool (Traffic Lights)

Sir K. Thompson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for the instillation of traffic lights on the East Lancashire road, Liverpool, at its junction with Townsend Avenue, in view of the traffic hazards to which pedestrians are exposed at present.

Mr. Galbraith: We do not consider traffic lights are justified at this junction at present.

Sir K. Thompson: How does my hon. Friend reach such a conclusion when everyone in the area knows that it is absolutely necessary to have this kind of controlled crossing in order that people may walk across the road? Is my hon. Friend aware that traffic movements have been so successful that the traffic moves so quickly as to prevent pedestrians crossing the road? Surely something should be done to help them?

Mr. Galbraith: My information is that in the last three years only three pedestrians lave been injured, but in view of what my hon. Friend has said, I am arranging for the divisional road engineer to have a new count taken and in the light of that, we can reconsider the matter.

Sir K. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend say what is the normal number of accidents which have to happen before there can to a controlled pedestrian crossing?

Mr. Galbraith: There is not any norm; it depends on each case and each is dealt with differently.

Swing Bridge, Thorne

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the delays and congestion at the single-line swing bridge over the canal at Thorne; and what proposals he has for a new bridge suitable for heavy industrial traffic.

Mr. Galbraith: A new bridge over the canal will be constructed as part of the Thorne by-pass scheme. An order under Section 7 of the Highways Act, 1959, establishing the route of the bypass, was made in October, 1963. There are further statutory processes to be completed and the design work and land acquisition to be undertaken but we hope to authorise construction within a year or two.

Mr. Jeger: Can the hon. Gentleman say by whom the bridge will be designed—whether it will be decided by open competition or whether his right hon. Friend will choose one of his friends?

Mr. Galbraith: I am afraid I could not give an answer to that question without notice.

Tadcaster (By-Pass)

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport what are his proposals for the A.64 in connection with the construction of a by-pass road at Tadcaster.

Mr. Galbraith: A line for the by-pass is shown on the approved development plan.
There are many more urgently needed improvements awaiting a place in the roads programme and I am afraid it will be some years before this scheme can be included.

Sir L. Ropner: Could my hon. Friend give a rather closer interpretation of what he means by "some years"?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think so. I should like to help my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am afraid I cannot do so. There are a great many more urgently required schemes than this, but it is something which will require to be done eventually.

Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great resentment in

the area of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), and in my area, that there is far too much Ministry of Transport concentration on trunk roads and main roads and not enough on the hinterland, particularly on roads leading to the ports from the main roads on which the right hon. Member has concentrated?

Mr. Galbraith: I quite understand that, but the policy of my right hon. Friend is to deal with industrial roads first. I think he is right, and everyone in this House agrees that he has got his priorities right.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Dipped Headlights

Mr. Mapp: asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has given to the communication of 25th November from the Chief Constable of Oldham dealing with dipped headlights in built-up areas.

Mr. Marples: The Chief Constable was invited to make comparative tests between his experimental system and another sent to him from the Road Research Laboratory. I am grateful for the information he has recently provided about the results.

Mr. Mapp: Is the Minister aware that I and, I am sure, the Chief Constable will be pleased at his constructive approach? Is he aware, as I think he is, that we must find the happy compromise between inadequate sidelights and glaring dipped headlights, particularly in towns? It may be that the work done experimentally will find the ultimate solution and I urge the Minister to proceed on those lines.

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I agree with him that we must find the answer, particularly for wet conditions at night, because that is when dazzle arises. What the answer will be, I do not know, but we are studying the results of the dipped headlight campaign and carrying out certain experiments all over the country and ultimately, I hope, we shall find a satisfactory answer. I agree, however, upon the importance of the problem.

City Centres (Private Motorists)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for banning private motor vehicles from the centres of certain large sities.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he is making to restrict or ban the use of private motor cars in the centre of London and other large cities.

Mr. Marples: None. Sir. But I accept the conclusion of the Buchanan and Crowther Reports that sometime in the future some limitation of traffic in the larger cities will be unavoidable.

Mr. Allaun: While I accept that the decision should be taken locally, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the time to which he has referred has now arrived in London, Manchester and certain other cities, because at rush hours traffic is being brought practically to a standstill? Would he not agree that to allow only public transport—buses can carry 60 passengers, for example—is the solution in the immediate future?

Mr. Marples: No, I could not agree, not even in London, because the measures which we have taken in London in the last few years have resulted in an increased flow of traffic at peak hours and an increased volume can be taken by the streets. by such methods as one-way streets. A great deal more can still be done in London and we are to have several major schemes each year for the next two or three years. Therefore, I cannot agree with the assumption made by the hon. Member. Another thing is that we have a positive policy towards parking so that people are stopped from long-term parking on the streets. That in itself will make a significant contribution.

Mr. Lipton: Does the Minister recall that on 5th December, 1956, I told the then Minister of Transport that
…keeping private cars out of central London is the quickest and least complicated solution to the problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 1222.]
When will the Minister grapple effectively with this problem instead of behaving, as he does, like a beetle on a pin—a lot of activity but nothing achieved?

Mr. Marples: I only wish I had the salary of the Beatles. I must say, however, that traffic is now moving faster than it did in 1956 and there is a greater volume of it. The hon. Member was wrong in 1956 and is wrong again now.

Dartford Tunnel

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate has been made of the increase of northbound traffic through Kelvedon Hatch, Essex, since the opening of the Dartford Tunnel; and whether it is proposed to make a count of such traffic in the summer season of 1964.

Mr. Galbraith: Provisionally at not more than 500 vehicles a day. A comprehensive survey of tunnel traffic in the area, including Kelvedon Hatch, is being undertaken shortly.

British Road Services (Export Traffic)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will direct the Transport Holding Company that British Road Services should introduce a priority system for export orders.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. British Road Services is fully conscious of the importance of export traffic, and it is for it. in its responsibility for management, to decide how it can best handle it.

Mr. Goodhart: Does my hon. Friend think it satisfactory regularly to have to move export goods these days from Pembroke to Harwich Dock? The Green Arrow scheme works satisfactorily on the railways. Why should it not work satisfactorily on the roads?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that my hon. Friend has had a letter explaining the difficulty in that these loads are small, there is no direct line and when there are trans-shipments it is bound to take a little time.

London Underground System

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport if, in considering methods of relieving traffic congestion in London, he will make a special study of the methods of the Paris Metro system, where there are three route miles of railways to every one square


mile of the Paris area, with a view to extending the London Underground system, which has only one route mile to every four square miles of the area served.

Mr. Marples: Responsibility for any new developments on the London Underground system rests with the London Transport Board, which has a direct interest in the relief of traffic congestion.
Any proposals made by the Board must be related to the particular needs and circumstances of London, which are very different from those of Paris. But London Transport has studied the Paris Metro and other foreign systems for any ideas which might usefully be developed here.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend point out to the London Transport Board that the Paris Metro system is 12 times more intensive than the London Underground system and thereby leads to less traffic being on the roads and to less congestion on the buses? Would he also point out that areas like Chelsea and South London are not served to a marked degree by the Underground and that, if the Board wants to relieve congestion, that is the way to do it?

Mr. Marples: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend and it pains me to say so. Paris is a smaller and more compact city. A larger part of the population lives in the central area and the Metro provides an intensive service for that area. It does not have to serve the outer suburbs and there is no highly-developed network of bus services comparable with that in London for short journeys. The circumstances are very different.

Mr. Mellish: Surely the extension of Underground facilities in London are a matter not just for the London Transport Board, but for the Minister? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any intention on his part, or on the part of his Department, to extend our present inadequate Underground services?

Mr. Marples: London Transport is considering certain lines in London, one of them being an extension of the Victoria Line to Brixton, and another a possible link between Aldwych and

Waterloo, but it is awaiting the results of the London traffic survey before putting forward any firm proposals.

Private Cars (Registrations)

Mr, Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport what was the total number of private cars registered in the names of private individuals and of firms and companies, respectively, in 1963.

Mr. Galbraith: The latest year for which estimates can be given is 1961. The motoring survey undertaken in that year showed that the numbers were 5 million and 1 million cars respectively.

Mr. Digby: Is not there something to be said for distinguishing between these two types of users? Should not it be taken into account when Buchanan is thought about and discussed, and is not there even a case for the Minister discussing it with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to seeing whether it is right that both should be subject to the same type of taxation?

Mr. Galbraith: There may or may not be something to be said for my hon. Friend's point of view, but my right hon. Friend's Department is making studies which could shed light on the amount of use made of the roads by various types of vehicles and the purpose for which they are used. I think that when we know that we shall be better able to answer my hon. Friend's Question.

Winter Weather

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he took between January and December, 1963, by issuing general directions to, and by consulting with, the Railways Board and other appropriate bodies, to minimise delay, hardship, and danger to users of rail and road transport in winter weather.

Mr. Marples: I consulted the British Railways Board, the London Transport Board, licensing authorities, local authority associations, and other interests, about the problems of road and rail transport in winter and the measures necessary to meet them. I also issued detailed guidance to local authorities about keeping roads clear of snow and ice.

Mr. Driberg: Is the Minister aware how very, very lucky not only all of us


have been but he in particular has been, that there has not been a repetition of last year's weather, or he might have been sacrificed, justly or unjustly, as a scapegoat? Is the right hon. Gentleman now satisfied that, to take one instance only, the points at Shenfield will no longer freeze up if there is a severe cold snap, as points never now need do?

Mr. Marples: During the recent very short spell of severe weather the main trouble was, of course, the points freezing, but where automatic heaters were installed they were most effective and there is an annual programme for the installation of further heaters.

Fog (Headlights)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make the use of undipped headlights in daytime in fog compulsory.

Mr. Galbraith: Under the present law we cannot compel motor vehicles to use their headlights when there is fog in daytime. This, however, is what the Highway Code advises.

Mr. Digby: May I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not the fact that during the recent fog, in the middle of the day an appeal was made to do what I am suggesting, and that if it had been made at the outset it might have prevented accidents? Is not there something to be said for making it part of the law of the land, as I believe it is in France?

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend would hope at the earliest convenient opportunity when there is future legislation to embody some such provision as this.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. Friend also consider making it compulsory at night, because half the motorists in London seem to be mad enough to drive on their sidelights in circumstances of intense fog?

Mr. Galbraith: Certainly we shall consider that.

Parking Law

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Transport how the discussions on parking law simplification are proceeding; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: It is not possible under the Road Traffic Acts as they now stand to give greater precision to the law on obstruction, but I am considering the need for future legislation. I am also consulting representative bodies about a new system of traffic signs to be introduced this year which will, I hope, help to convey more clearly to drivers the restrictions on waiting on particular lengths of road.
The Road Research Laboratory is investigating the effects of unlighted parking on the accident rate.

Mr. Bossom: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful Answer, but may I ask whether he will include, in the present discussions that he is having, measures to improve parking signs, rules for parking without lights, for loading and unloading and also a ruling on the tag-end use of parking meters? I am sure that he will agree that these matters are causing unnecessary friction between motorists, the police and traffic wardens.

Mr. Marples: I agree, and with the implementation of the Warboys Report on signs I a ink we shall see a welcome improvement. I agree with my hon. Friend that it. is necessary that we should have standard signs through the country, so that when a motorist is in any town he will know quite clearly what is expected of him.

Mr. Snow: On the question of the lighting of parked vehicles, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some difficulty in the Midlands? In the overspill area of Birmingham there is one set of regulations, and in Staffordshire there is a different set, which has resulted in some conflict.

Mr. Marples: This is a difficulty that we find throughout the country, because each chief constable has his own idea of what system should be adopted in his area, and motorists are sometimes confused when moving from one area to another. This is one of the things that I am looking into with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Off-street Car Parking

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: asked the Minister of Transport what further studies are being undertaken into the traffic induced by the extensive construction of off-street car parks in town


centres and its relation to the capacity of existing roads and anticipated improvements, in the light of the problems discussed in the Buchanan Report.

Mr. Marples: The Joint Urban Planning Group is examining the rôle of off-street car parks in relation to urban traffic. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I hope to issue shortly a planning bulletin to local authorities on parking in town centres.

Mr. Rodgers: Does the Minister agree that this is absolutely crucial in any regulation of traffic in planned cities, to the extent that a complete reversal of policy may be required, especially in the inclusion of parking space in new buildings? Will he push forward this research as quickly as possible so that a formula can be decided upon which can be adhered to?

Mr. Marples: We will do this as quickly as possible, but the aim is to get an overall parking policy which comprises the restriction of on-street parking together with the provision of off-street parking, in such a way that the best use of the streets is obtained for moving traffic. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall press on with that as fast as we can.

Buchanan Report

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: asked the Minister of Transport what estimates are now available of the likely costs of implementing fully the recommendations of the Buchanan Report over the period of the next 25 years.

Mr. Marples: Extensive urban renewal and road improvements are going to be necessary in the years ahead. It is not possible to estimate the extra cost of carrying this out in accordance with the planning concepts advocated in the Buchanan Report.

Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate the impossibility of giving a comprehensive figure over an extensive period but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm what the Minister of Housing and Local Government said on Monday evening, namely, that no major reconstruction will take place on the lines of the Buchanan Report within the next four years? Further, does the right hon.

Gentleman recall that no provision was made in last December's White Paper for any major reconstruction on the lines of the Buchanan Report?

Mr. Marples: It is a fact of life that no action can be taken to implement Buchanan until we have had the results of the comprehensive land use transport surveys which are now in hand. They will form the basis of any decision, and until we have that information we cannot make any decisions.

Mr. Rodgers: Does that answer imply that those towns which are already going ahead with extensive centre renewals will be asked to call a halt to their operations? If that is not the case, why cannot extra finance be made available to them if they want to carry out new and ambitious plans on the lines of Buchanan?

Mr. Marples: It is no good talking about new and ambitious plans unless they are based upon the results of a comprehensive land use transport survey. We cannot do anything until we have had the results of these surveys.

Tinsley Methodist Church, Sheffield

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Minister of Transport when a reply was sent by him to the letter, dated 7th August, 1963, from the representatives of the trustees of Tinsley Methodist Church in Sheffield relating to the compulsory acquision of the church.

Mr. Galbraith: An interim reply was sent on 12th September, 1963. The district valuer was already trying to help the trustees to find an alternative site and he has, at our request, continued his efforts and been keeping in touch with their agents, as my right hon. Friend explained to the hon. Member in his letter of 3rd January.

Mr. Hynd: Is not this deplorable? The Minister has admitted that the firm wrote to him on 7th August, 1963, and an interim reply acknowledging this, and stating that the Minister would give a full reply as soon as possible, was sent over a month later, since when nothing has been heard from the Minister in reply to that letter. Surely the Minister should at least send an apology to the firm and provide it with the reply which


he promised on 12th September, 1963? So far as I know, the firm has received no reply from the Minister.

Mr. Galbraith: To a certain extent I can understand the hon. Gentleman's anger. In fact, no letter was sent, because the district valuer was in personal touch with the trustees throughout all this time. My right hon. Friend did not want to send a negative reply, which he would have had to send, while there was still hope that an alternative site might be found. If it will help the hon. Gentleman, I am quite prepared to send a letter to the trustees along the lines of the letter which my right hon. Friend sent to him.

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to satisfy the Trustees of Tinsley Methodist Church that an alternative site will be available before the church is demolished, following its compulsory acquisition by him in connection with the Aston-Sheffield-Leeds motorway project.

Mr. Galbraith: I understand that the trustees of the Methodist Church have now been able to make arrangements for the temporary use of other premises but as far as permanent accommodation is concerned, I cannot add to my right hon. Friend's letter of the 3rd January.

Mr. Hynd: I understand the Minister claims that he has no statutory responsibility in such cases, but is not there a very strong moral responsibility on the Government? They have the power to destroy a church in the interests of road development and they seek to discharge their responsibility by offering money to rebuild the church when there is no site. Is not there a moral responsibility on the Ministry to do something more positive to assist this church to get a site for a new building?

Mr. Galbraith: It was because we recognised what the hon. Gentleman refers to as a moral responsibility that we asked the district valuer to help. My right hon. Friend has no power to acquire land specifically for those people who are displaced. All we can do is use our good offices; we cannot do more.

Mr. Hynd: In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the replies to

this Question and the previous Question, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Drivers)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to bring into operation Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, requiring the drivers of heavy goods vehicles to be specially licensed.

Mr. Galbraith: We will keep an open mind on this until our inquiries into the M.1 accidents on 21st January are complete. But we do not think present evidence on accidents in general would justify the re-introduction of special licences for drivers of heavy goods vehicles.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does my hon. Friend recall that before the war there was a licence for drivers of heavy goods vehicles of over 3 tons? Is he aware that lads of 21 are driving vehicles of up to 20 and 25 tons and it is alleged that there are some drivers who drive as much as 400 miles in 10 hours, at 40 miles an hour, in these heavy vehicles and that it is not good enough?

Mr. Galbraith: As my hon. Friend said, this is alleged. I do not think that there is any proof. It would be better to wait until we have the result of the inquiries into the accidents which occurred on the M.1. May I point out that drivers of heavy goods vehicles have a record of fewer accidents per mile travelled than any other class of driver?

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that some of these vehicles are 60 or 70 ft. long and that such vehicles are being constricted in increasing weights? Is he aware that the driving of these vehicles calls for a different method of handling than is the case with other vehicles? Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to these problems so that we do not have trouble in the future?

Canals

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Waterways Board to dispose of unwanted stretches of canal on


favourable terms to local authorities and other interested bodies, in order to preserve them for the purposes of boating and walking.

Mr. Marples: I do not think such a direction is either necessary or appropriate. The British Waterways Board is at present reviewing all its waterways and its interim report makes it quite clear that it will welcome the advice and co-operation of all interested bodies.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will the Minister encourage the British Waterways Board, particularly in respect of areas about which he is approached, such as the extension of the Trent and Mersey Canal at the Caldon branch, where the local youth group is trying to develop this in the Churnet Valley near Leek, which is one of the most beautiful bits of Britain? Would he see that this stretch of canal is saved for the youth of this area, which is on the edge of the Peak District? Is he aware that some months ago we had a hopeful answer from the Minister during an Adjournment debate about this canal?

Mr. Marples: I agree that where appropriate canals should be used for amenity purposes. The British Waterways Board in a recently published Report—I thought it an extremely good Report—stated in paragraph 172 that a decision on the future of the Caldon branch would depend on the result of further studies and consultations. The Board is quite prepared to have the necessary consultation with any amenity interests in that area.

Mr. Talbot: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I ask him to consider that all through the industrial Midlands there are lengths of canal which are not of prime interest for transport purposes but have a great amenity interest, and that this includes a couple of most interesting tunnels? May I ask whether my right hon. Friend would go a little further, and in appropriate cases allow the British Waterways Board, without consideration, to dispose of these canals freely to local authorities, because there is great competition among manufacturers to secure the sites and close the canals, which is not in the public interest? May I ask my right

hon. Friend to devote particular care to the position in the industrial districts?

Mr. Marples: I agree that canals are useful for amenity as well as for commercial transport. The British Waterways Board is seized of this point and has said that it would like consultations with any amenity group interested in particular canals. All this depends on the result of further studies and consultations but the Board has shown in its Report how keen it is on this aspect.

Motorists (Insurance)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that motorists whose vehicles are the property of a partnership or a company seldom know that drivers of such vehicles are not covered for personal injury even under a comprehensive policy and whether he will introduce legislation to make compulsory insurance for injury to drivers of such vehicles.

Mr. Marples: I am not aware of any general lack of knowledge on this point. I do not propose to add to the existing provisions of the Road Traffic Act on compulsory insurance.

Sir B. Janner: Will the Minister make further inquiries? Is he aware that not one of the motorists to whom I have spoken knew that this provision obtained, that there was no possibility of getting a claim at all by a person who happened to be travelling in a car belonging to a partnership or driving a car belonging to a partnership or corporation? Will the Minister do something to see that this provision is generally known to the public, so that people may be protected against the consequences of a provision of which they know nothing at the present?

Mr. Marples: If the driver of such a vehicle is injured by another's negligence, he is covered by the provisions of the compulsory third party insurance under the Road Traffic Act, 1960. If there is no negligence by the other driver, any accident arising out of or in the course of employment attracts benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act for which insurance is compulsory for all employed persons.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Restrictive Practices

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Transport what recent progress has been made in negotiations with other maritime nations in an effort to curb restrictive shipping practices such as flag reservation, flag discrimination and the use of flags of convenience; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: I had a most useful meeting last December with Ministers responsible for shipping in nine other European countries at which we all agreed to work closely together in countering flag discrimination.
We have not so far considered flags of convenience at these international meetings as there are more pressing problems confronting European shipping.

Mr. McMaster: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can say what success has been achieved in negotiations between Europe and the United States in this case? Before any protest is made about sending buses to Cuba, will my right hon. Friend ask the United States to stop damaging our mercantile marine interests in this way?

Mr. Marples: This meeting in London was really called so that all the maritime nations of Europe could present a united front against United States flag discrimination, and we were successful in getting unanimity amongst 10 European nations, I think for the first time in history. In addition, Japan accepted an invitation to join the 10 and make her protest to America, so we now have 11 countries, including Japan, with well over half the world's shipping, united against the activities of the Federal Maritime Commission of the United States. I am glad to say that the chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission is coming to Europe—in fact I think he is in Paris now.

Mr. Mellish: I wish this discussion a happy conclusion, but may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that his Harbours Bill is going to introduce, by unilateral action, the necessity for foreign ships to have equipment of British standards, which could lead to trouble in foreign ports if we insisted on doing something on our own? Will the right

hon. Gentleman practise what he preaches and try to get general agreement instead of taking unilateral action?

Mr. Marples: I shall look at that during the Report stage of the Bill.

Mr. Webster: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission has restricted authority, and is not this a matter to be dealt with by Congress rather than by the Commission?

Mr. Marples: It is true that the Commission is a creature of Congress, and that ultimately this will be a matter for Congress. The point is that we stand much more chance of success if the whole of Europe and Japan are united in a common policy.

Taw and Torridge Estuary (Lights)

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Transport what consultation took place between his Department and the Elder Brethren of Trinity House before the latter took the decision to move the lights at the entrance to the Taw and Torridge estuary.

Mr. Marples: The Elder Brethren submitted their proposal to my Department for consideration and approval in the normal way. After obtaining the agreement of the Lighthouse Advisory Committee of the Chamber of Shipping my Department approved the scheme.

Mr. Browne: That was a pity. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local master mariners and fishermen who use this estuary are extremely dissatisfied with the proposed new positions of the lighthouses? Is he aware that this will make navigation over a very difficult bar much more dangerous than it already is? Is he quite satisfied that his Department knew what it was talking about when it approved this decision?

Mr. Marples: All I can say is that I am advised that the present temporary lights give a definite lead in at this estuary, and that ship owners and local pilots are satisfied with them. The permanent lights which will replace them shortly will be of much greater power than the lights at the former sites.

Mr. Browne: That is not true.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question time is impossible if it consists of counter-assertions.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Browne) is talking very good sense in this matter, and that the feeling of opposition expressed by the fishermen in his constituency is shared by those in my constituency who also use this bar? Will he consider this matter again?

Mr. Marples: I will certainly consider it again, but the lights and signals are provided by Trinity House for the benefit of general navigation and not for the benefit of local interests. Fishermen do not pay light dues.

Mr. Browne: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

British Ships (Repairs Abroad)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport what is the tonnage of British oil tankers and dry cargo vessels now being repaired in foreign shipyards.

Mr. Marples: No official records are kept of the extent to which British ships are repaired abroad.

Mr. Awbery: Is it beyond the capacity of the Minister to find out what British tonnage is being repaired abroad and what number of men are displaced in this country because ships are repaired abroad and the amount of money paid in unemployment benefit to those men? Will he examine the position again?

Mr. Marples: I do not think it would be right to restrict British ship owners to British repair yards, because foreign Governments might then restrict repair of their ships to their yards. In 1962 over £8 million was spent by foreign ship owners on repairs done here and this was 13½ per cent. of the total value of work done by ship repairers in this country. It would not be in their interests to follow this suggestion.

Mr. Awbery: Would it not find employment in a large number of British ship-repair yards for men who are now unemployed?

Mr. Marples: The point is that if we did this and put restrictions on other countries, they might retaliate and we might lose.

Mr. McMaster: In view of the value to British shipbuilding yards of repair work, will my right hon. Friend consider extending credit terms, in the same way as for shipbuilding, for the repair of British ships in British yards?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Sir L. Ropner: Will my right hon. Friend remember that there is great preference on the part of British ship owners to get their ships repaired in this country, but obviously if a ship breaks down at the other end of the world it cannot he brought home for repair?

Mr. Marples: I quite agree. There was a recent case of a tanker owned by B.P. which broke down in the Indian Ocean and it could not possibly be brought back to this country for repair.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Proposed Closures, The Highlands

Mr. N. McLean: asked the Minister of Transport (1) what information he has received, under Section 56(8) of the Transport Act, 1962, regarding objections lodged with the appropriate area Transport Users' Consultative Committee to the proposed closures of the Aviemore-Grantown-Elgin and Fort William-Mallaig lines;
(2) what information he has received, under Section 56(8) of the Transport Act, 1962, regarding objections lodged with the appropriate area Transport Users' Consultative Committee to the proposed closures of the Inverness-Wick and Inverness-Kyle of Lochalsh lines.

Sir J. MacLeod: asked the Minister of Transport what information he has received, under Section 56(8) of the Transport Act, 1962, regarding objections lodged with the appropriate Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee to proposed railway closures in the Highlands.

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received information from the Transport Users' Consultative Committee under the provisions of Section 56(8) of the Transport


Act, 1962, concerning objections to the closing, of the Inverness-Wick and Inverness-Kyle of Lochalsh passenger services.

Mr. Marples: The Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee has told me that objection has been lodged to each of the proposals for closure of passenger services in the Highlands of which the Railways Board has given notice, including those of services on the Inverness-Wick, Inverness-Kyle of Lochalsh, and Aviemore-Grantown-Elgin lines, and of certain stations on the Fort William-Mallaig line.

Mr. McLean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable anxiety is felt in the North lest an insufficient number of days is allotted to the hearings of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, which, I understand, is the statutory body which will hear these objections? Will my right hon. Friend bear this fact in mind when the Committee submits its opinion to him, or to the Secretary of State for Scotland, whichever the case may be?

Mr. Marples: The Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee is a statutory body and an independent one, but I will call its attention to the supplementary question which my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the Committee has announced that he will see only one or two of the objectors? Will he take steps to ensure that the Committee sees all the objectors? They are very angry about this in the North.

Mr. Marples: The procedure of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee is settled by the body itself. It is independent of me, and it must do what it thinks best in the matter of hearing objections.

Mr. McInnes: Since the right hon. Gentleman was largely responsible for the appointment of the individual concerned, will he now take steps to remove him from office?

Mr. Marples: I do not think that I shall do that.

Transport Users' Consultative Committees (Reports)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Transport in what form, printed or otherwise, he receives reports from transport users' consultative committees on hardship.

Mr. Marples: The reports are in typescript.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that members of the public, including passengers on the railways, know how to submit evidence of hardship to the T.U.C.C.s for onward transmission to him? Can he delicately point out to the committees and to British Railways that it is not very tactful, when intimating that the closure of a station is intended, to send this in an envelope franked, "Be sure to go by train"?

Mr. Marples: I do not suppose they franked the envelopes. I do not know of anyone wishing to give evidence before a T.U.C.C. who was, as it were, backward in coming forward to give evidence or was incapable of giving such evidence. People have always been eloquent and comprehensive in giving evidence before a T.U.C.C. and this evidence is taken into full account.

Sir J. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend publish those reports when he receives them, so that they will be available to any objectors?

Mr. Marples: No. The T.U.C.C.s have their own procedure and prefer that their reports should remain confidential, but some committees indicate in broad terms in statements to the Press the extent to which they have found hardship.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can anything be done to speed up the hearings, as delay is causing great hardship and inconvenience and the property is depreciating in value? Can my right hon. Friend also do something to reduce the expense caused to local authorities, which amounts to considerable sums?

Mr. Marples: As the committees are independent statutory bodies not subject to interference by the Minister, it is


extremely difficult to do anything about that, but I shall call the attention of the committees to the remarks made by my hon. Friend.

Sir J. Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put a supplementary question and the Minister did not answer it.

Mr. Speaker: No. Sometimes they do not. Mr. Mellish.

Mr. Mellish: May I ask a question following the point made by the Minister about these reports not being made public? Why should we not be allowed to know why a line is closed and why a committee came to its conclusions?

Mr. Marples: The whole idea of the T.U.C.C. consideration is that users of transport can express their difficulties fully, frankly and informally. The T.U.C.C.s have decided for themselves that they would prefer this sort of procedure.

Railway Closures (Bus Services)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give an undertaking that where bus services have been provided to replace a closed railway service those bus services will not be subsequently withdrawn.

Mr. Marples: Bus services provided to replace a railway service will be continued for so long as I consider they are needed.

Mr. Ridley: Can my right hon. Friend go a little further than that? Is he aware that it is not only a question of so long as he considers that these services are needed, but in so far as people who use them consider that they are needed? If he is prepared not to allow a closure unless alternative services are offered, can he not equally maintain that those services shall be continued until alternative services are provided?

Mr. Marples: It depends on how much the services are used. Some of the services are put on and used a great deal at the beginning and then their use tails off and hardly anyone travels by them. It would have to depend on the merits. There is an example in the constituency of my hon. Friend. Special

services of buses were arranged on every Saturday during the summer last year. It was arranged that 252 services should run, but each bus carried an average of only 1·6 passengers. In those circumstances, I do not think it right or reasonable that a subsidy should be paid for the service to continue.

Mr. Blackburn: How can the Minister control this? If British Railways are allowed to close uneconomic services, how can the Minister say that bus services are not allowed to do the same?

Mr. Marples: If a railway service closes and a condition is attached by me to the consent saying that a bus service has to be run and it gives an indication of timing and frequency, that cannot be taken off by the Railways Board without my consent. I can also require by direction that the Railways Board should pay a subsidy in necessary cases.

Leek—Stoke-on-Trent Line (Closure)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Transport what is his estimate of the savings following the closure of the Leek to Stoke-on-Trent railway line; and what are his estimates of the social and economic costs of providing adequate alternative services, especially in view of the growth and development of population in the Baddeley Green, Stockton Brook and Endon areas, which the line previously served.

Mr. Galbraith: We have made no estimates relating to this closure, which took place in 1956.

Mr. Harold Davies: This is it. Is the Minister aware that no real estimates have been made to substantiate even the Beeching Report which in this instance was based on the experience of simply a couple of days in the whole year? Is the Minister to try to get the social costs of this matter in keeping with paragraph 55 of the Beeching Report, which says that the social costs should be taken into consideration? In view of the Buchanan Report and the possibility of North Staffordshire having regional planning, will the Minister say that this line shall be kept open in future because of the growing population of the area?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member is quite right. This is it, but it is "it" in a sense he does not realise because this line was closed under the Act of 1947 which was brought into effect by the Government which he supported, whereas our 1962 Act would have seen that the Minister knew all about this matter.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even when his party is on the eve of a General Election social responsibility such as this is not the subject for a cheap crack, but it is a vital issue for the people concerned and not merely for a political party?

OVERSEAS SERVICE (YOUNG VOLUNTEERS)

The Secretary for Technical Cooperation (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the expansion of overseas service by young volunteers.
In the urgent attack on world poverty one of our greatest contributions is men and women prepared to work for the developing countries. Altogether, about 19,000 British men and women, provided with the help of the Government, are serving in this cause, mainly in the Commonwealth. Of these, at present about 550 are young volunteers—newly qualified graduates, school leavers and industrial apprentices.
Under plans already announced, the number will increase to 800 in September of this year. The Government want to see the scale of this effort further substantially expanded.
As an immediate step, two decisions have been taken: first, for the 1965 programme the Government will contribute 75 per cent. of the British costs compared with 50 per cent. at the moment; and, secondly, the 1965 programme will be increased to 1,300 volunteers of whom 1,000 will be graduates.
This means that the Government's contribution to the 1965 programme will be about £650,000, compared with £270,000 for the 1964 programme.
The outstanding success of the service given by volunteers from Britain has been due to their high quality and to the worthwhile nature of the projects to which

they have been assigned. The rate of increase will depend more than anything else on our determination to maintain these high standards. Judged on present trends of requests from overseas the increase is likely to be mainly, but not exclusively, among graduate volunteers.
The Government are in no doubt that volunteers should continue to serve under the auspices of the independent voluntary societies active in this field. The societies as hitherto will work in close co-operation with my Department, and will coordinate their activities through the Joint Committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Lockwood.
This system has worked with great success so far. Its independence and non-governmental character are most welcome both to the receiving countries overseas and to the intending volunteers in Britain.
The voluntary societies have welcomed our target for 1965. Both they and the Government are satisfied that they will be able to expand their programme still further in later years as the demand for volunteers increases.
If this movement is to gather force as we desire, it is necessary to arouse a high degree of public interest and support. To this end the voluntary societies have agreed to the setting up of a new body to be called the Council for Volunteers Overseas. It will receive reports from the voluntary societies and the Lockwood Committee and will advise both them and my Department on questions of policy affecting the programme. It will in no sense duplicate the coordinating work of the Lockwood Committee itself.
The membership will include Sir John Lockwood, the chairmen of the participating voluntary societies, distinguished representatives from the educational and industrial worlds, and also some past volunteers. The Council will be set up for three years in the first instance.
I am very glad to inform the House that His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh has consented to be President of the Council for this period.

Mr. Bottomley: Is it not pathetic that in the dying days of the Government they should find a new interest in overseas and Commonwealth affairs? Last week the


Prime Minister talked about a Commonwealth Court. Is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House have been urging upon the Government for a long time the need to strengthen this overseas volunteer service?
Can the Minister tell us what more this new Council will do that the Lockwood Committee could not do? The Lockwood Committee was to secure the coordination of voluntary services and to bring about increased recruitment. Who will be the chairman of the new Council? We on this side of the House welcome the decision of the Duke of Edinburgh to be the President, but we should much prefer to see him President of a bold and imaginative service and not one such as the Government have brought forward.

Mr. Carr: I am surprised, as I am sure many people of all parties outside the House will be, by the intemperate and wholly unjustified partisan approach of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley). I regret it. If the right hon. Gentleman asks who is electioneering, he should read his own words in HANSARD.
I believe that it is the wish of a great majority of hon. Members on all sides of the House, and of very many people of all parties outside, that this movement shall be developed as rapidly as possible in a totally non-partisan spirit. That is our desire. It has been expanding rapidly in recent years. There were 175 volunteers in 1961, 380 in 1962, and 550 this year; and there will be 800 going out later this year, and 1,300 next year.
This is a rapid rate of expansion which must be looked at in the context of the 19,000 British men and women serving overseas, an effort unparalleled by any other country.

Mr. Bottomley: Why was the announcement made now and not much earlier, when urged upon the Government by hon. Members on this side of the House?

Mr. Carr: Quite simply because last July I announced the total of 800 who will be going this September. It is necessary to plan ahead for these things, and the voluntary societies felt that if we were to get a bigger number, as we shall get next year, then it was urgent to make

our announcement about the 1965 programme not later than February of this year. That is the one and only reason. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to talk to some of his hon. Friends—to people of his own party inside and outside the House concerned with this movement—to get this matter in perspective.

Mr. Turton: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his announcement on a matter quite outside and far above party politics, may I ask whether he has considered giving a higher rate of grant in respect of the travel of these volunteers, bearing in mind that it is the cost of travel which is deterring some of the expeditions which could have been of tremendous value? If a higher grant were given on the actual travel, particularly if it were on British or Commonwealth airlines or British or Commonwealth shipping, it would assist our air and sea services at the same time.

Mr. Carr: We already make arrangements, where possible, for special fare facilities from shipping lines. In addition, the R.A.F., Transport Command, and various other services available to the Government can help occasionally, but the larger the scale of the effort becomes the more difficult this becomes. The cost of travel can be a substantial element in the total cost, to which the Government will be making a 75 per cent. contribution.

Mr. Grimond: I welcome the announcement of increased Government aid. Does the Minister agree that all engaged in industry have been extremely helpful in this matter? Has he had any consultation with industry about keeping jobs open for these volunteers, particularly for graduates, when they return? This is quite a consideration for some of them. Is he aware that there is a feeling that there is a danger of too much administrative top hamper in all this? Is he certain that the Lockwood Committee could not do the work of the new Council? All the voluntary societies have councils and executives of their own. Does he realise that it is extremely important to keep down the administration and to make the scheme as flexible as possible?

Mr. Carr: I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comment on the need


to keep down the administrative top hamper. If one studies what is being done one finds that most people who have gone into it—I say this with full respect to the right hon. Gentleman—feel that, if anything, hitherto the scheme has had too little administration rather than too much. The purpose of the new Council is primarily to focus and enlarge public interest in this matter. I do not expect that it will have many meetings—it is an advisory committee on policy.
I will bear in mind the third point which the right hon. Gentleman made. Many employers are already very helpful about this. The problem is less acute for the young volunteer going out before he starts his career than it is for someone who goes abroad for two years in the middle of his career.

Mr. Longbottom: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous pleasure which his statement will give to all the voluntary organisations concerned in this work, particularly as he is ensuring that they will continue actively to participate in this scheme? However, will he consider helping to provide project advisers and technical experts so as to ensure that we continue to maintain the very high standard of projects which are undertaken by these volunteers?

Mr. Carr: I certainly regard it as one of the main responsibilities of my Department, through its Social Development Division and through representatives who look after this work in our embassies and high commissions overseas, to be constantly unearthing more and more projects of the right kind.

Mr. J. Hynd: To what extent will ex-colonial civil servants of district and regional commissioner level be co-operating in this scheme? They have a vast fund of experience in this type of work and could be of enormous assistance in an advisory capacity. There are many who are now enjoying annuities in this country who might be prepared to go abroad and lead some of these projects? Finally, will some of these schemes he working in Latin America? If not, why not?

Mr. Carr: Yes, these schemes will be working in Latin America. Indeed, there are some there already.
As to the first point, it must be realised that no British person goes with any Government assistance to serve in an overseas country unless asked for by the Government of that country. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to choose who is to lead these teams. The one point which we must keep in mind about this effort is that it knits in—and we shall ensure that it continues to do so—very closely with the aid from what I may call professional effort, the rest of the 19,000 British men and women. In other words, these people will often be working in conjunction with those older and more experienced people overseas.

Sir K. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House will applaud his statement and join him in deploring the squalid electioneering of the party opposite? Is it really necessary that there should be this division between graduates and non-graduates in this scheme? Is there to be a ceiling upon those who are non-graduates who may want to take part in this work, or will there be room for all who may come forward?

Mr. Carr: There will certainly be room for non-graduates. The fact is that the demand for graduates is at the moment rising faster than the demand for non-graduates. We must primarily meet the demand from the overseas countries. We believe that in future years, as I hope that I made clear in my statement, there will be room for increases not only among graduates and other more highly qualified people, but also among school-leavers and industrial apprentices of various types.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley): who is to be chairman of the new Council?

Mr. Carr: I hope and believe that it is His Royal Highness's intention to play an active part in this Council. When it meets I presume that he will preside over its meetings.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: We shall have to have a Question before the House if we are to debate this.

CIGARETTES (HEALTH HAZARDS)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it illegal to sell packets of cigarettes which are not clearly marked with a warning of the health hazards which arise from smoking.
My proposed Bill is very small and would be only a small contribution towards the solution of a very large problem. I submit to the House that it is desirable at this stage of the big debate which has been going on in the country ever since the first report on cigarette smoking as a factor in illness, and since the Medical Research Council's statement received Government support in June, 1957, that adequate steps should be taken to make people who are smoking aware of the hazards which arise from that action. There should be at least a warning on each packet of cigarettes about the known hazards which have now been scientifically and technically agreed upon in all parts of the world by a large number of research bodies.
I want to make it quite clear that the health hazards are known quantities. There is always debate about other things which also form health hazards, but the hazards arising from cigarette smoking are known. There is no need for further argument or research on this point between scientists and doctors. What is difficult is to convey this knowledge to the general public and to those who are smoking large quantities of cigarettes, which, in spite of the number of reports of a scientific nature which have been published, each year still seem to sell in larger quantities than were sold the year before. We are especially concerned with young people who are acquiring the habit, rather than with those with whom the habit is perhaps settled and for whom perhaps the warning serves no great useful purpose.
I am trying to emphasise the need to warn about health rather than to warn about death. The purpose of the Bill is to enlarge the area of education and knowledge rather than to enlarge the area of threat and fear. I believe that in this subject we have got past the stage where the threat that if a person

smokes he will die carries much weight. We know that from lung cancer there is a death every 20 minutes, that today there will be 72 deaths, and that by the end of the week there will have been 500 deaths.
This means nothing to most smokers. One can say as often as one likes that there are 26,000 deaths a year from lung cancer, but it means no more to a teenager than does the risk that he will be killed if he "does a ton" on his motorbike. What I am trying to ensure, in short, is that each packet of cigarettes carries adequate warning of the hazards to health in a form approved by the Minister of Health.
Just as important as lung cancer are the two other major matters which affect health in this country. The first is the living death which can arise from chronic bronchitis. The second is the increasing number of people dying from coronary thrombosis. I am concerned that more people shall be aware about them. Last week I had the opportunity of going into a hospital ward where men were dying of lung cancer. The thing that rather arrested my attention was the man who was gasping for breath; he was suffering from chronic bronchitis and had been so gasping for six years.
Others will know of people whose lungs are more or less gone, but who live on year after year and who struggle for every breath they have to breathe and are invalids, to be nursed by others. These diseases are taking an increasing toll. The risk of a person who smokes contracting coronary thrombosis is 70 per cent. higher than the risk of a person who does not smoke contracting it.
Richard Doll, who is one of the most eminent experts in this field and who was partly responsible for the very first reports which started all this discussion, estimates that at least 15,000 deaths from chronic bronchitis and at least 10,000 deaths of people under the age of 55 from heart diseases can be attributed directly to the causal effects of smoking.
On each packet of cigarettes I would like to see a warning, approved by the Minister of Health, explaining just what the situation is, and certainly stating the tar and nicotine content. The question arises whether it would impose too great a burden on the industry to put a warning notice on every packet. The profits


of British American Tobacco last year rose by £4·3 million to a new record of £74 million. The profits of Imperial Tobacco Company rose from £28 million in 1960 to £31·7 million in 1963. In the light of the expenditure of nearly £10 million on advertising cigarettes, and since, in any case, the cigarette packet has to be printed, I submit that it would be no great burden on the industry to be required to put an adequate notice on each packet.
I submit also that this would be similar to the warning that, the Minister of Transport puts on the M1 when there are ice and fog about. Of necessity, the Bill would include penalties for manufacturers who fail to comply with the law, but I do not think that this is very important. I think that most manufacturers would willingly accept this obligation. In fact, I hope that one company will take this step without waiting for the Bill to get any further in the House. There would, of course, be no penalties—unlike for the hazards of death from road accidents—for failing to comply with the warning. It would merely mean that smokers were warned, and that if one did not comply it was one's own responsibility.
What the Bill would not do is to prohibit smoking in any way or interfere with free choice to smoke or not to smoke in any age group; and people generally would continue to smoke if they so decided. It would not curtail advertising it would not affect smoking in public places and it does not suggest any intervention by the Chancellor of

the Exchequer. As I said, it is a small Bill.
I apologise for speaking about cigarettes on Ash Wednesday, but since this is a serious season, I hope that hon. Members nay be persuaded to take this matter extremely seriously. I hope that the House will not decide this issue on prejudices. One of the things that has bedevilled this issue is that people have taken attitudes of moral good or bad. The Bill would seek the introduction of a statement of fact. It would in some measure show that the Government propose to implement their own policy. This would be made apparent to every person every time he felt the need to light a cigarette.
Much more needs to be done than this small Bill, but I hope that it will go out to the country that at least in this House we take this, problem seriously and that we hope, in this small way, to start the process of moving away from pious platitudes and exhortations to more positive action.

Question, put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pavitt, Mr. Lubbock, Sir B. Stross, Dr. Dickson Mabon, Mr. F. Noel-Baker, Mr. Milne, Mrs. Slater, Mr. C. Royle, Mr. Lipton, and Sir C. Black.

CIGARETTES (HEALTH HAZARDS)

Bill to make it illegal to sell packets of cigarettes which are not clearly marked with a warning of the health hazards which arise from smoking, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 10th April and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

Orders of the Day — INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT BILL

3.52 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill brings the law governing Income Tax machinery and procedures up to date. It should prove a useful contribution to the modernisation and simplification of the tax code, enabling worthwhile administrative changes to be made immediately and paving the way for possible future reforms. It will assist the revenue to adopt the most businesslike arrangements for dealing with assessments and claims and for collecting tax. I also believe that its proposals will be welcomed by the professional bodies concerned and that it will be to the convenience of the general body of taxpayers.
The Measure incorporates a number of changes which have been candidates for a Finance Bill in recent years. It is difficult to find room in a Finance Bill for procedural reforms or time for their consideration during the Budget and Finance Bill debates, when other more immediately interesting matters fully occupy the time of the House. This has resulted in the accumulation over the years of a series of acceptable changes, any one of which hardly warranted priority taken by itself, but which, taken together, seem well worth making.
Accordingly, the Government decided to combine these charges in a Bill which will not affect the scope of the charges to tax and which can, therefore, properly be considered apart from and before the Budget and Finance Bill. I am particularly glad that it falls to me to introduce the Bill, for its most important purpose is to give effect to two recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates based on evidence given to a sub-committee, of which I happened to be chairman.
These recommendations were, first, that responsibility for the making of Income Tax assessments should be transferred from the general or special

commissioners to the inspector of taxes, as earlier recommended by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, and by its predecessor, the 1920 Royal Commission, and, secondly, that Profits Tax assessments should also be made locally by the inspector of taxes, instead of centrally by the Board of Inland Revenue. Effect is given to these recommendations by Clauses 5 and 10.
I think that the proposals in the Bill regarding assessing functions will be more easily followed if I deal first with these Clauses and certain associated Clauses. I will come back later to Clauses 1 to 4. In Clause 5 there is a saving for certain income from Government and foreign securities which will be assessed centrally by the Board. Clause 5 also transfers formal responsibility for making Surtax assessments from the special commissioners to the Board, but the Board is given a general power to delegate any of its assessing functions to an officer of the Board. This would enable the administration of Surtax to be decentralised, in whole or in part, without further legislation, if this course seemed desirable.
This bears on another recommendation of the Estimates Committee; that the possibility of decentralising Surtax should be re-examined. The Board explained to that Committee why it would be desirable to defer a decision on this for a year or two, but, whatever views may be held on the merits, I am sure that it would be generally agreed that a decision on this point should depend on administrative considerations and that this opportunity should be taken of introducing the necessary enabling legislation.
The removal of nominal responsibility for the making of assessments from the commissioners should be generally welcomed. Nominal though the responsibility may be at present, it has meant that Income Tax assessments have tended to be made in batches two or three times a year. This has meant congestion of work for professional advisers and, therefore, some inconvenience to taxpayers, as well as some additional cost to the Revenue.
This change will mean the abolition of the office of additional commissioners. These commissioners have done good


service and I should like to thank them warmly for the work they have performed. I am sure that the committees which advise the Lord Chancellor on the appointment of general commissioners will have the names of those who have been acting as additional commissioners very much in mind when they make further recommendations.
The recommendations of the Estimates Committee and the Royal Commission on this topic were unqualified. Further examination of the implications, however, have led us to propose one important restriction on the assessing powers to be given to the Revenue. This is contained in Clause 6, with a corresponding restriction for Profits Tax included in Clause 10.
Assessments for years outside the normal time-limits in cases of fraud, wilful default or neglect are to be made only with the leave of a general or special commissioner. It did not seem right to give the Revenue unfettered discretion in such cases, especially as the present practice is to draw them especially to the attention of the assessing commissioner.
The Royal Commission also recommended that the appeal commissioners should be relieved of their other executive functions. Most of these relate to claims for reliefs and the transfer of functions is effected by Clause 9 and its consequential repeals.
I return to Clause 1. When the assessing responsibilities have been transferred to the Inland Revenue, the general commissioners will be free to devote themselves entirely to the hearing of appeals. It is hoped to help them in this by removing the present limits on the number of appointments which may be made; and Clause 1 also empowers the Lord Chancellor to alter the number and boundaries of the "divisions" for which general commissioners act. This will enable the number of commissioners for any division to be matched to the volume of appeal work for that division.
It is, of course, the appeal work that has become the main responsibility of commissioners in recent years—and it is a very important responsibility. When Income Tax was first introduced, in 1799, its administration was placed generally in the hands of local bodies

of general commissioners. Over the years, this work has come largely into the hands of the Government, but it has remained the position and will still remain the position that the inspector of taxes as the representative of the Government does not have the final say as to the amount of tax that any person must pay. The final arbiters, subject only to appeal to the courts on a point of law, art the general commissioners and they with their local knowledge are the persons best qualified to decide the many questions of fact which come before them.
It has often been said that the Income Tax system of this country can work only so long as it is accepted, however reluctantly, by the great majority of taxpayers. If that acceptance is forthcoming, and I believe that it is, it is mainly because members of the public know that if they disagree with the assessments made on them, they do not have to accept the inspector's say-so and can put their case to an independent tribunal in whom they may have the fullest confidence.
This is not, I trust, an inappropriate moment for a Financial Secretary to make his bow to the way in which the great bulk of the taxpayers face up to their responsibilities for the payment of tax. I do not think that it is fully appreciated how much time the commissioners devote to their duties. I should like here to pay them a most warm tribute for the work they do. There are about 5,500 commissioners at work in 700 divisions throughout the country, meeting regularly and in some of the busiest divisions as frequently as once a week, or perhaps a fortnight.
To preserve the confidentiality of appellants' Income Tax affairs, the public are not admitted to commissioners' proceedings and for this reason the valuable public service which they render goes largely unrecorded. Their work is nevertheless as important within Income Tax as that performed in another respect by the lay justices.
Like justices of the peace, the general commissioners receive no payment for their services. They have, however, since 1958 received travelling and overnight lodging allowances similar to those paid to justices. The Administration of Justice Bill, now before the House, pro-


poses that justices should also be paid day subsistence allowances and we are taking the opportunity of the present Bill to authorise the payment of day subsistence allowances to general commissioners as well.
At this point I might perhaps mention one or two other changes in Clause 1 relating to the appointment and tenure of office of general commissioners. Since 1958, most appointments of commissioners in England and Wales have been made by the Lord Chancellor. The City of London, certain City corporations and 11 other ancient cities, selected as long ago as 1799, at the time that Income Tax itself was selected, and some of them now relatively small, have, however, retained the power to make a number of additional appointments.
We propose that all appointments shall in future be made by the Lord Chancellor. We have sought the views of these appointing authorities and I am glad to say that they are all content to surrender these powers. In Scotland, the general commissioners are appointed by the county councils and by certain town councils and we are proposing no change there. Finally, on Clause 1, we propose to introduce a retiring age of 75 for commissioners such as already exists for justices of the peace.
Clause 2 deals with the commissioners' clerks. It introduces a retiring age of 70, with extension beyond that age to a limit of 75, if the commissioners so wish. This follows broadly the present practice for justices' clerks, and we are also making provision for the payment for the first time of pensions to the small number of full-time clerks to commissioners.
To dispose of the first Part of the Bill, headed "Administration", I take now Clauses 3 and 4. Clause 3 and its associated repeals makes it clear that inspectors or collectors, wherever serving, may act in relation to any part of the country. They may also continue any proceedings, legal or administrative, begun by any other inspector or collector, without prejudice, of course, to the right of the courts to require any particular inspector or collector to appear.
Clause 4 and Schedule 1 generalise the statutory declarations of secrecy, at present limited in terms to Schedule D. This follows a recommendation of the Royal Commission—and the Clause also requires the same declarations to be made by members of appeal tribunals not at present covered. I should also mention here that there is no reason why these first four Clauses should not come into force one month after the passing of the Act and provision is made accordingly. The remainder of the Bill would come into force on 6th April, next year.
The proposals to which I have referred so far have been concerned primarily with the making of assessments and the determination of appeals. I now pass to two Clauses directed to facilitating the collection of settled liabilities. Clause 8 extends the limits on the amounts of Income Tax which the Revenue can recover by local proceedings by enabling recovery action to be taken in certain cases in the county court as an alternative to High Court proceedings. At present, collectors can take local action for recovery by proceedings before magistrates—in Scotland, in the sheriff court—but only where the unpaid debt is less than £50. The £50 figure dates from 1924. Where the unpaid tax is £50 or more recovery proceedings have to be taken in the High Court—in Scotland, in the Court of Session—which involves heavier costs than local proceedings.
I think that it is clearly desirable to enable local proceedings to be taken in a wider range of cases, and for this purpose Clause 8 confers on collectors additional rights to take proceedings in the county court—in Scotland, the sheriff court. The ordinary limits on amount in those courts will apply: namely, £400 in England and Wales, £300 in Northern Ireland and £250 in Scotland.
The other Clause dealing with collection is Clause 13. This will interest the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) particularly. This extends the existing provisions for what is usually known as a "payment on account" to be made before the determination of an appeal. In strictness, such payments follow at present a decision by the appeal commissioners that part of the tax


assessed appears not to be in dispute. In practice, agreement is usually reached without bringing in the commissioners but sometimes the payment on account is not, in fact, paid as promptly as it is agreed,. Where this happens the case must be taken to the commissioners for a formal order, with consequent further delay in collection. This Clause, modelled on the provisions under which the appeal itself can be settled by agreement without a formal order by the commissioners, will enable agreed payments on account to be collected without troubling the commissioners.
Other new provisions requiring special mention relate to Northern Ireland cases. These are to be found in Clauses 14 and 15. There are no general commissioners in Northern Ireland; all appeals go in the first instance to the special commissioners. The Northern Ireland taxpayer can, however, in effect, have his appeal against an Income Tax or Profits Tax assessment determined by a local tribunal by requiring a rehearing by the county court judge if dissatisfied with the decision of the special commissioners. This rehearing provision has caused much unnecessary work and has enabled dilatory taxpayers to delay payment. New arrangements have, therefore, been worked out in consultation with the Northern Ireland Government. Under these the Northern Ireland taxpayer will retain his right to go to the county court. This will, however, be not a rehearing but an alternative to the special commissioners, if the taxpayer so elects.
Clause 15 also provides for a right of appeal to the courts on a point of law against determination by the county court judge whose determinations at present, on a rehearing, are final. Such an appeal from the county court will go to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland under the County Courts Appeals Bill (Northern Ireland) 1964, at present before the Northern Ireland Parliament. Provision is, therefore, made in Clause 14 for cases stated by the Special Commissioners in Northern Ireland cases to go to the Court of Appeal also.
Those provisions of the Bill which I have not so far mentioned can, I think, be disposed of at this stage quite quickly. Clause 7 provides a single statutory base for the annual returns of income in general use. These are at present issued

under the authority of an amalgamation of provisions, some directed to income not taxed at source, others requiring information only in support of claims for allowances.
The opportunity has been taken in Clause 9 to set out anew the procedures for making and determining claims to reliefs and allowances, and we hope that Schedule 2, which lists the standard procedure for virtually all claims, will prove helpful. Such changes as are made accord with accepted practice, and they are in no way prejudicial to existing appeal rights or options.
Clause 11 and Schedule 3 are required to determine which general commissioners have primary jurisdiction on appeals; that is, to determine the "place of appeal", replacing the present "place of assessment" which ceases to be significant. The rules again preserve all the options at present open to the taxpayer, and new provision is made for transfers of proceedings between bodies of commissioners to be agreed between the parties.
Clause 12 is largely a restatement of incidental appeal provisions, but new provision it made for the acceptance of late appeals by the inspector without reference to the commissioners, so authorising what is, in fact, generally accepted practice.
Finally, opportunity is taken in the various Clauses and Schedules of clarifying the existing law and of repealing many provisions which are spent or obsolete. As a result, it will be possible to remove about 65 Sections and five Schedules from the Statute Book and to facilitate that future consolidation which I am sure we all wish to see when time permits.
I feel quite sure that the general purpose and main proposals in the Bill will commend themselves to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and, certainly, their inclusion in a management Bill will have—I am sure—the support of the hon. Member for Sowerby who has on more than one occasion suggested—and often quite strongly—that such a Measure deserved consideration.
Administrative matters are perhaps not so exciting as the heady topics we debate on the Finance Bill, and the present


administrative arrangements for the Income Tax have served us well for a long time; but I am sure the time has now come to modernise them. A great deal of thought has gone into the proposals in the Bill. I believe that they will give us a sensible and up-to-date code of machinery and procedures for operation. Accordingly, I trust that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am sure that the whole House will thank the Financial Secretary for his very clear and lucid explanation of the Clauses of the Bill. I wish to acknowledge straight away his kindly reference to my own efforts over many years to get a Bill of this kind. I should have appreciated the honour had the Government asked me to add my name to the Bill, because I have been anxious that reforms of administration should be brought before this House at a time when we were not under the stress of the timetable and the controversial matters which are frequently in the Finance Bill itself.
On the face of it, this is very dull stuff. Only those in the business know what an exciting and historic Bill this is. It ends out-of-date and cumbersome procedures and a long-standing and wasteful fiction in Income Tax administration. The Financial Secretary made it clear to the House that the Bill is administration. It deals in the main with the machinery of assessment and appeals. It neither imposes additional tax nor gives any relief from tax. All it does is sweep away some of the remaining cobwebs of 1842. It repeals more than it enacts, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, towards the conclusion of his speech, and later I shall be referring to the great waste-paper basket of the Bill, which is Schedule 6.
The Financial Secretary harked back to 1920. I hope that the House will bear with me for a few moments while I sketch the history of the Bill. I am sure that the Financial Secretary is right when he says that this will be a non-contentious Bill, but 43 years ago, when a Revenue Bill was first introduced, it was so controversial that the Government withdrew it before the Second Reading. The proceedings on that Bill

were an absolute fiasco, because the Government were beaten by the Daily Mail and the General Commissioners for the City of London before they had uttered a single word in this House in defence of the proposals in the Bill. There has never been an occasion, as far as I know, to equal it.
Strong forces were gathered behind the preservation of the traditional local administration of the Income Tax. The general commissioners were held out to be the estimable body of gentlemen, and certainly they were—and are—who stood between the tyranny of bureaucracy and the helpless taxpayer; the assessors were men who saw that justice was done; and the collectors held themselves out to be the buffer between the bureaucracy and the taxpayer. Emotions ran high in 1920. The surveyor, as he then was—now the inspector of taxes—the Treasury watchdog, had his function, and no one doubted it, but neither the House, nor, so it appeared, the country, was then willing for the inspector of taxes to exercise legally the functions which, by force of circumstances, he had come to exercise informally within the procedure of the Income Tax Act.
I think that the story of the Bill may be a slight discouragement to those in the House who are calling upon the country to modernise itself and bring itself up-to-date and somewhat of a discouragement to those in the House who would like to see law reform got under way, because my short story will show that the clarion call comes from a Legislature which takes as its own model not the hare, not even the tortoise, but the snail. That is the history of this Bill.
We had a Royal Commission in 1920, and Clauses in the Bill are derivatives of recommendations by that Commission. It recommended that all collectors should be appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue and that the general management of collection should be under the Board's control. It recommended that, as soon as administratively possible, all collectors should become civil servants. It recommended that the office of assessor should be abolished and his duties should devolve upon the inspector, and that the functions of general commissioners should be practically confined to


appeals. That all sounds commonplace today, and part of it is in the Bill, but it seemed outrageous then. I can only think that the Government did not give way on that Bill except under the strongest pressure.
On 22nd February, 1921, the then Leader of the House was asked what he was going to do about the Bill and whether it would be taken on the Floor of the House. He said:
No, I shall ask the House to send it upstairs. That is the only hope of passing it. If the House treats it as a contentious measure it will not be proceeded with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1921; Vol. 138, c. 760.]
And in the event it was not proceeded with. They introduced the Bill on 6th April, 1921—a very appropriate date: the first day of the Income Tax year.
I looked at that Bill the other day. It proposed to abolish the office of Assessor and the notices to be issued by the Surveyor. It proposed that the power of making assessments should go to the Surveyor in the case of Schedules A, B and E. As regards Schedule D, the power to assess was to be put in the hands of the inspector only if any assessment did not exceed the amount returned for assessment, or was computed from accounts furnished by the taxpayer, or did not exceed the amount assessed for the previous year on the same source of profits or income. That was a real strait-waistcoat for the inspector of taxes, but it was in that Bill of 1920 which, apparently, some vested interest and public opinion could not swallow.
On 4th May, 1921, the then Leader of the House was asked what was to happen to the Bill. He replied:
It is not now proposed to carry the Revenue Bill further this Session"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1921; Vol. 141, c. 1045.]
The next relevant entry in the OFFICIAL REPORT is "Bill withdrawn"—and that is the last we hear of it. It was sunk without trace, and for years afterwards the ancient procedures and wasteful methods which the Royal Commission in 1920 unanimously declared had "outlived their usefulness" were continued.
The inadequate machinery had to be worked by the Inland Revenue. The grand total of time and materials wasted in administering the Income Tax under the old provisions which this House failed to reform 43 years ago must be very

great, indeed. I humbly suggest to this House that if that is its record, it is not in a position to lecture other people about getting rid of cumbersome methods, about bringing their organisation up to date, about cutting out things that lead to waste of staff, and all the rest. We have been guilty for 43 years, but I see no blushes on the faces of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. After all, they have been able to do something for the last 12 years—but I will not make a party point of this; I will say that successive Governments have failed to bring about the reform
They have done some of it piecemeal. Under the stress of war, it was necessary to make drastic changes in the method of assessment of wages and salaries, and a very significant change was made then—

Mr. R. H. Turton: I am sure that, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Gentleman will wish to pay tribute to the fact that this situation has been ended through the Estimates Committee, and the Chairman of Sub-Committee C of the Estimates Committee, having gone into the question and advocated the alteration.

Mr. Houghton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but he is rather overtaking my speech. I will pay full tribute to Sub-Committee C of the Estimates Committee but, if the House will bear with me, this is the only entertainment the House will have. All the rest will be had going on individual Clauses, so hon. Members should make the most of this light interlude on the history of the Bill.
I shall not weary the House by describing the appointment and swearing in of assessors who no longer assessed, of collectors who could no longer collect, and of general commissioners who had to be persuaded to make and allow assessments they never saw, but that is what has happened in Income Tax administration over these years. It is no wonder that two Royal Commissions paid tribute to the resourcefulness and skill with which the Inland Revenue improvised and circumvented to overcome the impedimenta of a century.
It is hard to believe that the withdrawal of that Bill in 1921 meant that


the only statutory means of communication between the tax assessors and the taxpayers generally was the church door notice—and that was only one stage removed from the town crier. Assessors nailed these notices on church doors right up to 1939. In 1941, through the initiative of the agreeable, and subsequently notorious, Guy Burgess—who died in Moscow just recently—the first radio talk on Income Tax was given, and it fell to me to give it, in a programme called, if I may say so without advertising, "Can I help you?". That is still a popular feature of our sound radio, and I am glad still to be in it.
That was a break-through into the twentieth century but, of course, the machinery of Income Tax could not stand still even though the House had failed to reform it by statutory means. Collectors had to be absorbed into the establishment. It took 11 years after the dropping of the 1921 Bill to embark on the first Measure of centralisation. The old service was by then near breakdown. Collectors appointed by local commissioners were frequently incapable of doing the job properly, large sums of money were passing through their hands, and the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention to the increasing amount of all faults and muddle.
The Government had to act, as they did in 1931. But, true to tradition, in 1952 this House passed the Income Tax Act, a consolidation Measure, which, in the Fourth Schedule, reaffirmed the power of general commissioners to pursue defaulting collectors beyond the grave. I quote from paragraph 6(1) of the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1952—not of 1852, but of 1952:
If a collector fails to pay any tax or moneys received by him as collector, and detains in his hand, and does not pay or account for the same in manner directed by this Act, the General Commissioners, in their respective divisions, may seize and secure the freehold estate and all other estate, both real and personal, belonging to him or which has descended or come into the possession of his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, wheresoever the same can be discovered and found.
That was the power given to general commissioners of Income Tax as recently as 1952. When I asked how many collectors were then in a position to be pursued beyond the grave, the

answer was. I think, one. This present Bill now tumbles the whole lot into limbo.
The Royal Commission of 1955 had a go at this business, too, and dealt with it all in Chapter 31 of its Report. Six years later, the Estimates Committee had a go and, as the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has just said, the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, as Chairman of Sub-Committee C, heard all the evidence, produced an admirable Report, and pursued the recommendations with a doggedness that was quite reassuring. The Sub-Committee put the Board of Inland Revenue on the spot—I hope that the hon. Gentleman is still keeping the Board there. As he has said, the proposals in this Bill emanated from the Report of the Estimates Committee.
So here we are, in the year 1964; we complete the story of 43 years of galloping reform—and arrive, breathless, at the Second Reading of this Bill. That is the story. Indeed, I believe that we only get the Bill now because, the Government having postponed the General Election, there is a little lull in the legislative programme and the Bill has been pulled out of the pigeon-hole—though I am glad that it has been. I am sure that the House will welcome it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the whole of the Inland Revenue Department will welcome it, not because its staffs are thirsting for more power, or thirsting to exercise the responsibilities of bureaucracy any more intensively than in the past, but because it will facilitate their work.
For an inspector to be able to make an assessment at any time, especially if it has been agreed with the taxpayer, to clinch the thing, get it settled and the money paid, will surely be good business, instead of waiting for the general commissioners to raise additional assessments, with all the apparatus and paraphernalia connected therewith, leading often to much delay and to the possibility of losing the money in the end.
The hon. Gentleman referred to almost all the Clauses, and I was grateful to him for explaining Clause 1 which gives power to change the number and the boundaries of divisions. That stems directly from the Report of the Royal Commission of 1920. The method of


appointment of general commissioners comes partly from paragraph 348 of the 1920 Royal Commission and partly from paragraph 958 of the Radcliffe Commission of 1955. It now completes the process which was begun in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, when, as the hon. Gentleman has explained, certain exceptions from appointment by the Lord Chancellor were then accepted by the House, and I am very glad to hear that a clean sweep can be made by agreement with all those concerned. That is a good thing.
Clause 2 is welcome because it deals with the position of many public servants who are full-time, and who give long and faithful service, but who have not been provided with any superannuation arrangements. They are not civil servants, and it is right that they should continue not to be civil servants. They are servants of the commissioners, who, in their capacity as the appellant body, will want to have a clerk who can advise them independently without owing any allegiance whatever to the Inland Revenue Department.
Clause 4 deals with declarations of secrecy which came under some criticism in paragraph 949 of the Radcliffe Report. There were some weaknesses in the declarations that had been required under the existing law. The new proposals will make them more comprehensive.
Clause 5 is the major Clause and the main reform of the Bill. It transfers to inspectors and to the Board of Inland Revenue the power of making assessments. The first part implements the recommendations of the Radcliffe Committee, paragraph 943, and the second part implements paragraph 950. I was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say, because I was going to ask him, that Clause 5 paves the way to decentralisation of Surtax.
The hon. Gentleman was Chairman of Sub-Committee C of the Estimates Committee, which had all the evidence from the Inland Revenue Department, the Income Tax Payers' Society, the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants, the Federation of British Industries and staff associations and which showed a considerable weight of opinion in favour of decentralisation of Surtax. The Inland Revenue was a little

coy about it. It pleaded overwork. which is nothing new for the Inland Revenue—it is always suffering from it—and it begged for a little more time to consider what it should do. For the moment, I think that we can be content that it is now possible for that to be done without fresh legislation.
The Financial Secretary was right when he said that it had to be considered as a matter of administration in all its aspects. I do not think that we need any longer concern ourselves with any feelings of sensitiveness of the Surtax-payer about having his affairs dealt with by the special commissioners and not by the general commissioners. That was certainly in the matter to begin with, but I do not think these considerations weigh any longer. It is now a question of economy and efficiency of administration. I stall not detain the House by expressing any judgment on that matter.
I would only permit myself to say that I am sure that the Financial Secretary will agree that there is a good deal of inter-communication between district officers and the special commissioners at present, and a very large amount of that would be saved. There are factors on the other side. I suppose that I had better say outright that I am a decentraliser and have been for years. I think that it makes sense, and I hope that further examination will prove that that is a wise thing to do.
The Financial Secretary pointed out that Clause 6 qualifies the right of the inspector to make an assessment on his own when it is out of time on grounds of fraud, wilful default or neglect. Then he has to get a general or a special commissioner to assent to the making of the assessment which is out of time in those conditions. I think that that is a reasonable safeguard to the taxpayer. The inspector is then moving perhaps into a contentious field where a taxpayer may feel strongly about something and where tensions may develop rather more than at another time, but I think that for the inspector to get the support of an independent person is a reasonable safeguard.
Clause 8 is of importance because it deals with the power of recovery. It has been absurd that the recovery of unpaid Income Tax, not recoverable by


distraint, could be dealt with only by summary proceedings for amounts up to £50 and that recovery of amounts over £50 had to be taken through the High Court. It was quite fantastic. No wonder the so-called assessment division of the Inland Revenue has files years old because it cannot take proceedings for one reason or another, and I hope that this will clear up a lot of arrears which, under the existing system, have unavoidably accumulated.
In being able to go to the county court for up to £400 in England and Wales, £300 in Northern Ireland and £250 in Scotland—I do not know why there is this difference, but that has nothing to do with the case—we are adopting the limits provided for under the county courts procedure, which is right, and certainly no attempt should be made to overstep them in the interests of the Inland Revenue. Clause 10 is the counterpart to Clause 6 in relation to Profits Tax.
Clause 13 deals with the collection of the undisputed portion of an assessment which the taxpayer is questioning. The Financial Secretary described the existing procedure. On the face of it, it appears that this weakens a little the power of the Inland Revenue to recover the undisputed portion of the outstanding tax. As I see it, the provisions of the Clause apply only in the event of agreement being reached between the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue. If agreement is reached on the undisputed portion then that portion can be collected and payment can be enforced, but under Clause 13(2) it seems that the taxpayer is given 30 days from the date of reaching agreement to withdraw from it. He has a month to think it over after reaching agreement. If he decides that he would rather not, or his advisers suggest that he should not, continue, he can repudiate and only thereafter is he bound by the agreement reached.
If there is no agreement, it looks as though there is no means of enforcing payment on the undisputed portion of the assessment. We shall have to examine this a little more closely in Committee. I am not at the moment pressing for anything. I merely want clarity on this. We can conceive of circumstances in which the disputed portion of the assess-

ment is the smaller pair, so that by disputing the pence the taxpayer can delay payment of the pounds, and only if he reaches agreement on the undisputed portion is he bound to pay anything at all till the appeal is settled.
I think that the House will wish to be assured that taxpayers cannot play ducks and drakes and that if they want time to pay they should go to the collector for it in the proper way and not get it by methods of this kind. In parentheses, recalling that the Financial Secretary said that I would be interested in Clause 13, I wish to make clear that I do not owe anybody anything. There is no dispute on any part of my assessment. My interest in this matter is purely academic or administrative.
I can hardly contain my enthusiasm for the Bill and my pleasure at seeing it after all these years. I congratulate the Financial Secretary on being the ministerial agency for its introduction. It must give him great satisfaction to be able to do it, especially after all his work through the many sittings of Sub-Committee C of the Estimates Committee. I am sure that the whole House will give this new and bold jump into the Britain of tomorrow a warm welcome. This is modernisation. This is creating a Britain which is up to date. On these grounds alone we should welcome the Bill.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Alan Hopkins: I would not wish to cross swords with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), whom I hold in very high regard, but I think that he was chiding us perhaps unfairly about the tardiness with which the Bill had been produced. As the hon. Member pointed out, the Bill is a fair step in modernisation, but I am sure that he would be the first to agree that it is an extremely complicated Measure. I have spent some nights trying to read it. I confess that it was more likely to put me to sleep than otherwise when I tried to understand it. It is complicated, but very well worth putting on the Statute Book.
As a member of Sub-Committee C of the Estimates Committee, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on his perseverance


in climbing the ladder from the chairmanship of that Sub-Committee to the Financial Secretaryship of the Treasury and, wearing the latter hat, putting forward this Bill now. I should like to pay tribute to him for the way in which as chairman he conducted the inquiry. We all went into the matter very thoroughly and we appreciated the way in which my hon. Friend allowed his colleagues on both sides of the Committee to put their points to the witnesses. I am sure that all members of the Committee will agree with me that we performed a useful function and that the Report was well received upon publication.
I welcome Recommendation 6 by the Committee, on the abolition of the responsibility of additional commissioners for the assessment of returns. I remember hearing evidence of the reason for the appointment of these additional commissioners, and I go further back in point of time than did the hon. Member for Sowerby. I understand that in the middle of the last century it was found necessary to have additional commissioners because the inspector would not himself have the knowledge or the means of assessing individual incomes, particularly in the country. These individuals would not "come clean" with the inspector, whereas the additional commissioners, being possibly friends or competitors, would be more likely to know the income of the individual concerned. Times have changed and it seems that the need for additional commissioners is no longer as great, and, indeed, is not important at all today.
I also welcome particularly Clause 5, which I understood the Financial Secretary to say enables the decentralisation of Surtax to take place, should that prove possible in time to come. I well remember the evidence given before the Sub-Committee on this point. It seemed to me overwhelmingly in favour of decentralisation. I appreciate the position of the Inland Revenue in that it would take some time administratively to make this change possible, and in the initial stages it might cost more in collection than the present centralised system. Is it the intention of the Revenue to continue to look at the decentralisation of Surtax, which I am sure from the point of view of taxpayers as a whole is more desirable than the

dual return which they now have to make for Income Tax and Surtax?
My final point arises also out of the Report of Sub-Committee C relating to the treatment of taxpayers as a whole and the forms which are filled in. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary may well remember Recommendations 13 and 14 which refer to the possibilities of simplifying memoranda and pamphlets at present issued by the Revenue, in the former case, and the content and design of the forms which are issued to taxpayers with a view to achieving greater simplicity and clarity in the latter.
In common with, no doubt, many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have met in interviews many of my constituents who come with genuine problems relating to Income Tax and their returns. In most cases these could well have been settled if they had been in a position readily to understand what the whole form was about. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to let us know whether any further steps have been taken in the last two years towards clarifying the forms of return sent out to taxpayers, and also what further information has been made available to taxpayers as a whole through the offices of the local inspector of taxes.
I appreciate that this is probably not a matter that requires legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend confirms this and will be kind enough to let us know whether this forward-looking part of the Bill will also be interpreted in the spirit in which the tax is extracted from taxpayers as a whole. I join in welcoming the Bill.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister for bringing in this revision of the administration, and the collection of Inland Revenue. My experience with constituents who come to me about Income Tax problems is that, fortunately, most of them are within reach of an Inland Revenue office and my advice to them always is to go to see the inspector of taxes. I find generally that the inspectors of taxes, and their staffs, even though they may be busy, are always most helpful in dealing with people who have difficulty in understanding the forms and understanding how to fill them up. We


ought to pay tribute to the work they do in this way. Many people find it difficult to fill in the forms and are rather frightened by them, especially if they do not ordinarily have to deal with financial affairs.

Mr. Hopkins: The point I was trying to make—and I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman—was that if the forms themselves were more comprehensible the need to trouble the inspectors would not be as great.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes. I am in no way criticising the hon. Gentleman. My experience is that no matter what the form is many people will find it difficult to fill it in. Indeed, I will make a confession: I find it difficult sometimes myself to understand exactly just what is expected on this form.
There is another reason why we should congratulate the inspectors. When we consider the shortage of staff and the amount of work they have to tackle, then the amount they accomplish is quite remarkable. I should like the Minister to tell us whether there is any possibility of increasing the inspectorate. It is not an easy thing to be an inspector of Income Tax. It requires quite a lot of knowledge of the law and an intuitive faculty, as it were, to make the best job of it. The inspectors do quite wonderful things sometimes in estimating people's incomes which the people themselves do not know. It is quite remarkable how many people there are who do not know what their incomes are.
I remember when the members of the Supreme Soviet came over here I was asked to look after those who were going to Scotland. I took them to a farm and they were extremely interested in the farmer and all he had to tell them. He was able to tell them all about his fertilisers, how many machines he had, everything about the costs of working the farm, the crops he grew, and so on. He knew all about those things. Then they asked him how much profit he made. He did not know. So how the poor Income Tax inspector finds out from him what his profit is is more than I can understand.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Perhaps I can explain that. He may have thought that the Soviet delegates were Income Tax inspectors in disguise.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps that may have confused the calculations.
I had a friend who knew a farmer—this was before the war, when money was not so plentiful among the farming community—who was complaining he had lost £600 the year before. My friend could not understand how this came about, and then to his surprise he found that the farmer estimated that he had made only £1,400 and so had lost £600. So we can understand that the Income Tax inspectors have a problem in dealing with people who do not know what is happening to themselves.
However, I should like the Minister to tell us whether there is to be an increase in the inspectorate, because I think one of the best investments that this country can make is in having a sufficient inspectorate of taxes with sufficient time for the inspectors to do their job. It is a skilled job to study the returns of income made by some people. I used sometimes to study the returns of a number of people and, frankly, I was not able to understand them or how it was they made them.
For instance, I know what it costs to live in my own city. I know what it costs to live in my house. I see houses where nobody could possibly live at the amount of income those householders must have if the figures in their returns are correct. There are many people living at a standard above that which is their standard, judging by their Income Tax returns, if those returns are correct.
I am assuming that if there were a sufficient inspectorate the inspectors would be able to do much more work in helping people to make correct returns of income, and this would bring in a very much larger income to the country as a whole. It is legal to avoid Income Tax, and there are lawyers who earn their living by telling people how to avoid paying Income Tax. There are quite a number of people who lecture us on our public duty but who go to live in other countries for six months or more of the year to avoid doing their duty by paying their share of Income Tax. They draw huge incomes and lecture other people and then leave them to pay the taxes which maintain the Army, the Navy and the Air Force which protect us all. Not so much as should be is paid from their


handsome incomes for that. If the Inland Revenue authorities could get at some of the mean people who allow others to do their job for them by paying their taxes for them it would give a little more satisfaction to the public generally when they pay their taxes, and it would also bring in a larger amount of revenue to the Government.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said about the Bill. He dealt efficiently with the Clauses and the actual administration, and I am quite sure that none of us could improve upon what he said. I agree entirely with what he said, that the confidence we shall have with this decentralisation will help the Income Tax inspectors and others in their work; and we hope that eventually it will bring to the Treasury a greater return, both in cash and in good will, than at present exists.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I, too, would like to add my own personal welcome to the Bill. Any legislation which seeks, as the Bill does, to modernise the law relating to the machinery and procedures of Income Tax is assured of a favourable reception not only inside this House, but also among the tax-paving public outside.
I will go further and suggest that the Bill, which seeks to simplify the administrative provisions relating to the assessment and collection of Income Tax and Profits Tax, will not only have a favourable welcome, but will be welcomed with open arms. It will gladden the hearts of many of my fellow accountants to see the Bill on the Statute Book.
For many years the law and administrative processes surrounding Income Tax, and, indeed, Profits Tax, has been overburdened with a plethora of small, trivial technicalities. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) gave what was to my mind a fascinating and entertaining history of the origin of some of these trivialities. Many legal anomalies will remain, but some glaring administrative ones will be got rid of by the Bill. It is sufficiently difficult for the average taxpayer to comprehend the maze of Income Tax legislation without burdening him further with all the unneces-

sary administrative complexities which seem to go hand in hand with Income Tax law.
I say this not only as a taxpayer, but as an accountant, The extent to which the Bill will amend existing legislation—perhaps, spring clean would be a more descriptive phrase—is only fully appreciated, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby mentioned, when we study the list in Schedule 6 of enactments being repealed. The aim of a good spring clean is, of course, to remove cobwebs—obsolescent, administrative cobwebs in this case.
Before turning to those parts of the Bill which I found to be particularly worthy of comment, there are one or two general observations which I should like to make. The transfer of the formal responsibility for making Income Tax assessments from the general or special commissioners to Inland Revenue officers is welcome, even if somewhat belated. On one point which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary outlined about the age limit at which general commissioners must retire, the age of 75, although I appreciate that this will bring them into line with comparable posts, neverheless I should have thought there might be a case for reducing the age to 70.
The provisions contained in Clause 13 have attracted a good deal of comment. I was very surprised when I read the Clause, because I am forced to admit that ever since the days when I was an articled clerk, in an accountant's office in Belfast, I personally believed that the matters contained in the Clause were already law. I am relying on memory, but I feel quite convinced that the local inspectors of taxes with whom I used to deal worked on the principle that only that section of an assessment which was the subject of an appeal remained outstanding and that on which there was no disagreement was settled.
I wish to draw particular attention to Clauses 14 and 15, which relate to Northern Ireland. The Bill makes fairly far-reaching changes. As has been said, there are no general commissioners in Northern Ireland. This situation has a historical or gin. It was, if I remember aright, the Income Tax Act, 1918, which instituted the general commissioners, and in those years Northern Ireland had


other matters preoccupying its mind, and it was felt that locally appointed general commissioners could lead to difficulty in the circumstances then prevailing. However, I cannot help feeling that, 45 years or so later, the time has come to consider the appointment of general commissioners in Northern Ireland, and I regret that there is no such provision in the Bill.
The absence of general commissioners imposes an almost intolerable burden upon the special commissioners acting in Northern Ireland. To give the House an idea of what is involved, I shall list the duties falling upon these gentlemen, which, it will be remembered, are shared by general commissioners on this side of the water. Special commissioners in Northern Ireland make all the assessments. They hear every single appeal. They sign all the warrants for levying tax and determining claims for exemption. They deal with all the claims for abatement and repayment of tax. All this work has to be carried out during the course of two brief visits which the special commissioners make to Northern Ireland each year. If there were general commissioners who met more often and who were more readily accessible, the work load, I feel sure, would be much more evenly spread.
The outcome of the present situation, of course, is that many of the appeals which are lodged for hearing before the special commissioners are never even reached. How could they be on the basis of biannual visits into which so many other matters besides the hearing of appeals must be crowded?
Clause 14 is designed to reduce the number of avenues of appeal which are open to the Northern Ireland taxpayer, but, although my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred, I thought, with pleasure to a tidying up in this respect, I frankly admit that I regret what is proposed. To my mind, it is a retrograde step that cases against determinations of the special commissioners now have to go direct to the Court of Appeal instead of first to the High Court and thence to the Court of Appeal. I regard the omission of that step in the avenue of appeal as regrettable.
I am not altogether satisfied with the proposed alteration of the present

system whereby an appeal to the special commissioners can go for a rehearing by the recorder or county court judge. The existing system is now to be altered, with the right of election to appeal direct to the county court judge instead of to the special commissioners. Again, I am not altogether happy at the omission of this rather important step.
I draw one inference from the Bill with regard to the decisions of the recorder or county court judge, and I should be glad if my hon. Friend would confirm that my conclusion is correct. Previously, there has been no appeal against such decisions, whether on a question of fact or on a question of law. Now, I understand, a point of law can be the subject of appeal and the claimant, the appellant, can go to the Court of Appeal. If my deduction is correct, I regard this as a welcome provision.
None of the proposed changes in appeal procedure makes any move to overcome the major deterrent factor affecting many appellants. I submit that countless thousands of dissatisfied taxpayers and would-be appellants have been deterred by the cost of an appeal to the superior courts. However, I imagine that this is quite outside the framework of the Bill and that it will have to be a subject for another occasion.
To my mind, there are three criteria by which any Measure for the modernisation of our taxation system should be judged. First, will the Bill benefit the taxpayer in any way? Secondly, will it be unworkable for practising accountants? Thirdly, will it be of assistance in streamlining the administrative processes of the Inland Revenue?
Briefly, my answers to those questions are these. It seems very doubtful that the Bill will make any difference to the taxpayer, except, perhaps, the Northern Ireland appellant, and he, I cannot help feeling, is given a rather raw deal under the Bill. Secondly it seems that the work of the practising accountant will not be either complicated or alleviated in any way by the Bill. Thirdly, undoubtedly the Bill is of very substantial value in streamlining the work of the Inland Revenue.
In conclusion, may I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to give


fresh thought to the desirability of bringing Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in the appointment and scope of duties of general commissioners.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I do not pretend to be an expert on Income Tax law. I find it very difficult to fill in my own forms and to understand the matter at all, and, in this respect, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), I am greatly indebted to the inspector of taxes and his staff, who are always very helpful. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to them, based on my own personal experience both past and present.
The Bill relates to Scotland, of course, and I see the name of the Secretary of State on the back of it. There are one or two points of importance in the Scottish context which should be raised. As I understand it, the Bill makes no change in the appointment of general commissioners in Scotland, and I wonder whether this is a good thing. I am intrigued by Clause 1(3):
General Commissioners for divisions in Scotland shall be appointed by, and shall hold office during the pleasure of, the appropriate local authority, but any such General Commissioner shall not be dismissed except with the consent in writing of the Lord President of the Court of Session.
This seems to be something of a contradiction. If a general commissioner may not be dismissed without the consent of the Lord President of the Court of Session, it seems clear that the local authority cannot dismiss him. We have a rather similar situation in Scotland in regard to the assessor in local authorities, only in that case the consent has to come from the Secretary of State, not the Lord President of the Court of Session. Why should it be the Lord President of the Court of Session? I see neither rhyme nor reason in it.
Clause 1(4) provides that
In Scotland a sheriff shall be ex officio a General Commissioner".
I could understand this in the past, in more leisured days when sheriffs, by and large, were a leisurely class of people. But we are moving now into a time when the sheriff, and particularly the

salaried sheriff-substitute, who, also, is ex officio a general commissioner, is an exceedingly busy man. The salaried sheriff-substitute in Glasgow, Edinburgh, or any large town of Scotland has the whole of his time occupied in the work of the courts. I imagine that he would find it rather difficult to give to this job the time which shiuld be given.
This is why I wonder whether it is right not to reconsider the situation in Scotland as regards general commissioners and make changes in the set-up there. As I say, the provisions of Clause 1(4) relate to a time long passed. Contrary to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) about the Bill modernising our procedures, we are here hanging on to something which is quite out of date and out of accord with present circumstances in Scotland.
The same point occurs to me in connection with Clause 8, with which I agree. Subsection (4), which deals with Scotland and the raising of the amount which can be sued for in the sheriff court, is a good provision. It brings the law into line with recent legislation which put up the amount for which one can sue in the sheriff court to £250. I do not know what the position is in county courts in England, but I know the position in sheriff courts in Scotland. People in Scotland spend two, three and four weeks in prison because they cannot get a trial.

Mr. George Lawson: We had a case in Edinburgh only last week in which a man spent 104 days in prison before being tried. He has now been tried after 110 days in prison, and this does not seem to be unusual.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. It would be a mistake to go too far on that line in this debate.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Is it not in order to discuss whether courts which are being given a duty under the Bill are likely to be able to carry out that duty?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Reference to the matter is quite in order as long as hon. Members do not go too far.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I was dealing with Clause 8(4), which states:
In Scotland subsection (1) of this section shall not apply, but where the amount of income tax for the time being due and payable under any assessment does not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds the tax may, without prejudice to any other remedy, be sued for and recovered from the person charged therewith as a debt due to the Crown by proceedings commenced in the name of a collector of taxes in the sheriff court or in the sheriff's small debt court, whichever is appropriate.
In Scotland, men are kept in prison because they cannot be brought before a court for trial. This extension in functions performed by the sheriff court is likely to prejudice that situation and make it worse.
I should like some information about this subsection. To what extent are cases likely to be taken to court under it? Will it be a handful or hundreds of cases? The larger the number, the greater will be the delay. A number of my hon. Friends have repeatedly raised something which has become a scandal in Glasgow, namely, the delay in cases being heard in sheriff courts.
I understand that the position of sheriffs and sheriff substitutes and of their functions and the procedures of the sheriff courts are being considered by a committee in Scotland. I am sorry that there is not a Scottish Minister here to deal with this matter. The attention of this committee should be drawn to Clause 8, so that it may take it into account when making recommendations. It would have been a good idea to draw the attention of the same committee to sheriffs being appointed ex officio general commissioners. It might be able to recommend whether this practice should be continued.
These are matters in the Bill with which I am concerned, and I feel that they should be the concern of one of the Scottish Ministers. They should be brought to the attention of the committee considering the functions and duties of sheriff substitutes so that it will have them in mind when making recommendations about the future of these bodies in Scotland.

5.16 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: I too, welcome the Bill because it is a piece of streamlining which is entirely in line with Tory Party policy in the twentieth century. It has the advantage that it will cost no money because it deals with management and efficiency. It is more likely to save money than cost money. For those reasons, I welcome it.
I wish to raise only two points. First, I was a member of the Joint Select Committee of both Houses which was responsible for the consolidation of the Income Tax law which eventually emerged as the Income Tax Act, 1952. As is the habit of Joint Select Committees, an enormous amount of work was done on this Act. It has 532 Sections, making it, I think, the biggest Act on record, and 24 Schedules. We regarded a number of the provisions of the then law as spent. I am delighted to learn from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that he has discovered some more. We had long arguments about whether some of the provisions were spent, and some of them applied to Scotland.
I took the responsibility on at least one occasion of inducing my fellow Members to agree that some of the Scottish provisions were spent. More have now been discovered, and I am delighted to hear it. Some of the spent provisions arise from law made since 1952. Therefore, this process of modernisation is a continuous one which I commend.
My other point concerns something which I came up against some years ago. If one pays tax in advance, it is possible to get a discount. I think it reasonable that there should be a discount on tax paid in advance for various reasons. First, a man may have some money, say, in August, and, looking forward to the following March, or whenever he normally pays his Surtax, for instance, he may prefer to pay in advance what he would have to pay later and thus get a discount. Secondly, Surtax, in particular, is collected on income received two years beforehand.
A man's circumstances may be very different two years afterwards. For example, there might be a depression, as there was in 1930, when I was caught for income which I had received in 1928.


There might also be a Labour Government two years afterwards, in which case the value of money might have gone down. Those are the kind of circumstances that could arise.

Mr. Houghton: I thought that the hon. Member was going to refer to a number of Ministers who would lose their jobs and, as Surtax payers, might be in difficulties.

Sir J. Duncan: That is a further point. I agree that somebody who had been a Minister at the £5,000-a-year rate and had little other private income could be in serious difficulty. I see that the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) nods agreement. He has had experience of this. These are problems and it would be of advantage to the taxpayer to be allowed to pay tax in advance.
I have been trying to find the provision to that effect in the 1952 Act, but I have not succeeded. I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary whether there is a provision in law or whether it is purely an administrative convenience on the part of the Inland Revenue, because I should like it to be put on to the Statute Book in the Bill. I do not think that it is included in the Bill, although I have tried to study the part of it which deals with minor and consequential amendments of the law.
Unless a person pays the whole of his tax due in advance, he cannot get a deduction. He cannot get a deduction if he pays only in part. This leads to the difficulty that one does not know in August what will be one's total tax liability which may be demanded in January and, perhaps, payable in March, or much later if there is any argument as to the total liability. Therefore, it is not possible to take advantage of the discount which would be available to a person who knew his total tax liability.
This is a slightly complicated affair, but I hope that my hon. Friend will look into it for the benefit of the taxpayer, for the benefit of his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and for the benefit of the Inland Revenue, too, because it would be of great advantage to the Inland Revenue, who would get the

money in advance. The discount would be, say, ½ per cent. below Bank Rate; the rate of interest is not a matter of great importance. The Treasury would not lose, because it would get the money earlier than otherwise would be the case.
If my hon. Friend regards this as a good idea I hope that he will not leave it to the whims of the Inland Revenue, but will state definitely that tax paid in advance for, say, one year or two years could be made subject to a discount at the rate of ½ per cent. below Bank Rate.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) has rather surprised me. Speaking as a representative of a Scottish constituency, he seems to be a little out of character. If we are to be considered according to our national character, i is not very often that we from Scotland wish to pay in advance.

Mr. Cyril Bence: But for a discount.

Mr. Lawson: It is not one of the difficulties with which I have been confronted. Usually, the people who come to me do so because they have paid in advance and they have paid more by the P.A.Y.E. method than their current earnings justify, and their claim is that they should get something back. If, however, the idea is a good one, and the Income Tax authorities are prepared to try to operate it, I am sure that we from Scotland would be happy to help them as far as we can.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I am concerned that as little trouble as possible should be offered to the Inland Revenue. I appreciate that very often its task is difficulty. When I saw how this Measure was being implemented concerning Scotland, and I had the matter drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, I thought that, in spite of all that seems to have been in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), this step was, being taken without the position having been properly studied.
In taking the decision to add to the responsibilities of the sheriff courts in Scotland, was there really a study of


the existing situation concerning those sheriff courts? I would not blame anybody in the Inland Revenue if he did not know of the existing position. In fact, the Secretary of State for Scotland did not know, or does not seem to have known, of the position as it existed in these sheriff courts, because great astonishment was expressed by the Secretary of State only the other week when he discovered how many people were being held in prison in Scotland before trial, for how long they were held in prison and how many of them subsequently were found not to be guilty.
The point which I put in all seriousness to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is that according to the information that comes to us, those courts are so burdened that there is an ever-lengthening queue of people coming forward for trial. I need only mention an article which appeared in the Guardian on 3rd February. The Guardian does not usually refer much to Scottish affairs, but it had a special article on the question of the queue of people at the sheriff courts. Speaking of the difficulties, it said:
It seems that the present situation stems from the system of accused persons appearing before magistrates' courts on charges outside the courts' powers and, once remanded, the accused then became part of the ever-lengthening queue of people awaiting their turn to go before the sheriff.
When adopting these measures, did the Minister know of this situation in Scotland? This is a matter of concern to us. We want the conduct of matters of this kind in Scotland to be made as easy as possible. We certainly would have no objection to this type of case, for these relatively small sums which the Inland Revenue wishes to recover, being taken to the sheriff courts.
Has any thought been given, however, to what will happen if the circumstances remain as they are? Or has the Treasury been given advice that radical measures of improvement are about to be carried out in those sheriff courts, which has led the Treasury to believe that since radical improvements are being undertaken it will be possible easily for the work that it is desired to carry out to be taken to these courts and dealt with expeditiously?
Unless some assurance has been given, the Treasury should hold its hand and suspend this part of the Bill to ensure that already overburdened courts will not be still more burdened.

Sir J. Duncan: This is the present provision under Schedule 1 of the 1952 Act.

Mr. Lawson: The Bill extends the scope after £250. We welcome this provision. We are merely drawing attention to the great difficulties under which some at least of our courts are labouring. Those difficulties are such that the courts appear unable to cope with their work. I am sure that many hon. Members must have had complaints of proceedings before the sheriff courts where witnesses have been kept waiting for a whole day and then sent home because cases have not been reached.
Far be it from me to add to the difficulties, but I want to ensure that the Inland Revenue does not make things worse. I simply caution it to find out, before it goes ahead with this Bill, whether improvements are being made and whether or not its business can be carried out expeditiously. Given that assurance, I am sure that we would welcome fully these provisions.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: We are told in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to that Bill that its main purpose
…is to transfer formal responsibility for the making of Income Tax assessments from the General or Special Commissioners to Inland Revenue officers (in the main, to inspectors of taxes)".
Of course, that attracted me because, as a member of Sub-Committee C of the Estimates Committee, I spent much time during one Session going into most aspects of the Inland Revenue. I believe that the Financial Secretary was Chairman of the Sub-Committee at the time.

Mr. Green: I was.

Mr. Rankin: Then he will recollect the large number of witnesses and will agree, I think, that the work that that Sub-Committee did under his chairmanship was very efficient. I am not merely saying a word for him but for the Sub-Committee as a whole. The Bill gives effect to a recommendation of the Sub-Committee. If the mills of God grind


somewhat slowly, evidently they have at least ground with a certain amount of surety in this case. On that account, I welcome the Bill.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said that this is modernising and streamlining the methods by which the Government take money from the people and the machinery that enables the taxpayers to get some of it back if they deserve it. The test of the Measure's effectiveness will be how far it makes the individual aware of the complexities that presently surround the infliction of Income Tax.
Those complexities are very great—so great that many people give up in despair any attempt to fill in their Income Tax forms. Instead, they hand them over to chartered accountants. It is alleged that, by so doing, they achieve the aim which my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has pointed out is achieved by others—they dodge, or are alleged to dodge, some taxation by the use of high finance. The accountant charges some of the dues which the clients legally owe to the Inland Revenue.
How much truth is in that, I do not know. I trust the Inland Revenue. Every year, when my statement comes back it contains sections for "overpaid" or "underpaid". How the figures put opposite those words are reached I do not know. But this year, for the first time in many years, opposite the word "overpaid" a very substantial sum was indicated.
At first, as in former years, I merely put the statement away. Then, on second thoughts, I had another look and realised that for the first time in ten years the Inland Revenue owed me money. I promptly filled in the form and sent it last Thursday. Now I am waiting from day to day for what is owed to me.

Mr. Bence: We will have a dinner.

Mr. Rankin: No. There will be no dinner. A Scotsman never squanders money which comes unexpectedly. It will go to something, but not to other people's stomachs.
As I have said, I put my trust in the Inland Revenue. I depend upon it.

In days when I underpaid it was different.

Mr. Lawson: Surely my hon. Friend is still underpaid.

Mr. Rankin: I am keeping to the narrow path of order. I do not want to embark on wide digressions that might bring me into conflict with the Chair. In days when I had underpaid tax, I tried to find out why. I was behaving exactly in those days as I am still behaving. I got replies—five-sixths for this fraction and seven-eighths for another, etc. I am sure that all hon. Members have had the same. People who can make head or tail of these replies are in scarce supply. Perhaps I should have gone to a chartered accountant and paid him to find out what it all meant, because I was as wise at the end as to how and why I had underpaid taxation as I was when I started on that perilous adventure. Despite that, I still put my faith in the Inland Revenue officers. Last week it was rewarded. Long may that situation continue. They can reward me next year if they like. I shall not spurn that reward.
The whole test of the modernisation and streamlining that is incorporated in the Bill will be the degree to which the processes of the Inland Revenue Department are made intelligible to the ordinary individual in the street. They are not very intelligible to Members of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire referred to instances which have occurred in the town which he honours by residing in. He talked of people living in homes which apparently could not be easily maintained out of the incomes declared. In the course of the investigation that the Estimates subcommittee conducted we inquired closely into these allegations of misstatements, and from those upon whom we must rely we heard that although some money seemed to leak away the practice of giving misleading information was not widely engaged in.
That fact was driven home to me last week, when one of my hon. Friends told me that he had received a note from Cardiff saying that he had forgotten to include in his return on income a sum which was so small that it had


entirely escaped his attention. Cardiff had not overlooked it. There is a little angel watching over us in this Chamber, and he keeps a very close eye upon us. Nothing seems to get past him, not even little sums which we can be forgiven for forgetting about at times.
Balancing that against what my right hon. Friend said provides another aspect of the wonderful manner in which this powerful organisation works. It is a powerful organisation, which holds very closely in its hands, and keeps a very tight grip upon, that important section of the community which keeps things going by emptying its own pockets. The work of the Sub-Committee fortifies me in saying that the people who get away with it are very few in number.
I am sorry that the knight from South Angus is running away. I wanted to say a word to him. He suggested that we might pay in advance. It is easy for farmers to suggest that; they are paid in advance. This year the farming community will be receiving about £3,800,000. I forecast that from what I have read. My hon. Friend seems to doubt that figure.

Mr. Houghton: They are already getting £360 million a year.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Are not we in danger of going beyond the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Rankin: It is not for me to invite the Chair to be patient with me, but I do ask for a little patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My remarks will be very pertinent. I should have said that an increase of about £3,800,000 is expected for the farmers. It is easy enough for them to talk about paying in advance. The great mass of our people could not pay in advance simply because the ability to pay in advance means the existence of security of employment, which is totally lacking under this Government, especially in Scotland. Few people working in Scottish engineering shops and shipbuilding yards can depend on still being in work at the end of the week. There is no security of employment, and if there is to be payment in advance there has to be such security. The fact that unemployment still lingers round about the 100,000 mark is proof of what I say.
I support all that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said about the functions of the office of sheriff-substitute. Everybody in Glasgow knows that the courts over which sheriff-substitutes preside are overwhelmed with work. It may be true that this has been part and parcel of the situation since 1952, but the work done in sheriff courts today is much greater than was the case in that year. We were talking about streamlining. It might have been possible to streamline that apparatus in the Bill.
It would be helpful if the Financial Secretary could give us some idea of the amount of work that is presently thrown on to the sheriff-substitute in the execution of his duty. It might not be a great deal; it might be much more than we imagine. If it has any significance we ought to draw attention to the fact that more work is being placed on the shoulders of these officers, under the Bill, than presently exists, and that it is being put on to him at a time when he already has more work to do than he can accomplish within reasonable limits. I hope that the Financial Secretary will give us more information on this part of the Bill.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I wish to ask a question about subsections (4) and (6) of Clause 1. I may be wrong, but I understand that a sheriff can practise at the Bar outside his sheriffdom. A sheriff who becomes, ex officio, a general commissioner could practise at the Bar outside his sheriffdom while the commissioner of a division. The division may be wholly or partly within his sheriffdom. If part of the division is outside the sheriffdom the sheriff could act as a lawyer on behalf of a taxpayer or of the Inland Revenue in that area. He could be an assessor or an advocate for or against in that part of his division outside the sheriffdom.
It seems to me that the position is made worse by the provisions of subsection (6). The Secretary of State for Scotland may, by order, create a new division or abolish an existing division. A situation in which a division of which a sheriff was a commissioner was wholly within his sheriffdom could be altered, and the division extended outside the


area of the sheriffdom. It might include a tremendous industrial area in which the sheriff would be permitted to practise at the Bar. Subsections (4) and (6) seem dangerous. I consider that they are wrongly drawn and could result in a frightful situation being created. It seems contrary to the general practice in our society.
I agree wholeheartedly with the points which were made by my hon. Friends about the pressure which is being put on sheriffs by reason of the extra work which they will have to do. I understand that the sheriff substitute is a permanent appointment because ex officio he is a commissioner but the sheriff's appointment is part-time because he practices at the Bar. I shall wait hopefully—to use the term which Robert Louis Stevenson used—for a Law Officer to attend this debate and answer my question. I wish to be satisfied that I have interpreted the provisions in the Bill correctly. If I have, I hope that there will be an Amendment designed to change the situation.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Green: With the leave of the House, I will try to answer some of the points which have been raised.
I understand that the work of the sheriff as a Commissioner is small in amount and will not increase. There is remarkably little prospect of this work growing in volume at all. I think that answers most of the points that falls to me to answer because, like other hon. Members who have spoken about the situation in Scotland, I have to be careful to keep within the rules of order.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Scottish Minister to the points which have been raised in order that they can be conveyed to the Committee at present considering the operations of sheriff courts?

Mr. Green: I do not think that is a matter for me. But, of course, I shall be happy to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to what has been said—

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose—

Mr. Green: —perhaps I can anticipate what the hon. Member proposes to say—

Mr. Lawson: No. I wish to refer precisely to the point made by the hon. Gentleman that the work of the sheriff is not likely to be great. But there are courts where there are a long queue of cases to be dealt with and some may take a long time to reach unless there is to be queue jumping. I do not think the Treasury would wish to do that. If the courts are so overburdened, as would appear to be the case, it seems that sheriffs may be asked to do work which they could not reasonably be expected to do.

Mr. Green: The hon. Member will, of course, have noticed the wording of Clause 8(4)
in Scotland subsection (1) of this section shall not apply, but where the amount of income tax for the time being due and payable under any assessment does not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds the tax may, without prejudice to any other remedy, be sued for…
etc. One does not propose an instrument which is not available for use. I think that is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman.
The determination of points made about Scotland are outside my responsibility, but, of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland will note them. He will read the OFFICIAL REPORT of this debate. I have answered the point which falls to me to answer. I was asked how much more work was expected to all on the sheriffs, and my information is that it will be a very small amount.
I trust that the point raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire East (Mr. Bence) is not a material one. But I will, of course, look at it. The sheriff is an ex officio general commissioner. We have suggested the sheriff as an ex officio commissioner because there will be occasions when his personal and legal experience will be valuable.
One or two of the other points regarding Scotland would be better discussed in Committee, and I am fortified in that opinion because an hon. Member opposite has described the subsection as being very good. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) referred to the prepayment of tax and the receipt of some discount. This Bill is not concerned with any changes in tax charged, either up or down. Certainly no hon. Member would expect that at this time


of the year I would start to throw out hints about any such changes. But I can draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that there are such things as tax reserve certificates on which tax-free interest is paid.

Sir J. Duncan: In the latter part of his speech, my hon. Friend referred to consequential amendments which have been made to the law. I want my hon. Friend to look at whether one can be added to meet the important point which I made.

Mr. Green: I cannot include anything which affects revenue. There is already in existence means for rewarding those why pay tax in advance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) raised one or two specifically Northern Ireland points. The best assurance that I can give him is that we had very prolonged and thorough discussions, as might be expected, both with the Government of Northern Ireland and professional bodies over there. Clauses 14 and 15 are the product of those discussions. I hope that when my hon. Friend thinks about it he will accept that assurance.
On the specific point he raised about right of appeal, I think Clause 15 (4) answers the question. That subsection says:
Within thirty days after the determination by the county court of proceedings brought under this section any party to the proceedings may require the court to state a case on a point of law for the opinion of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
There is an appeal on a point of law. That was what my hon. Friend wanted to know.
The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) wanted to know whether we thought the staff of the Inspectorate was adequate. We think it is. I am sure the right hon. Member would agree that to have extra inspectors, so to speak, merely in order to have extra numbers would not be sensible.

Mr. Houghton: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly take it from me that there is not the remotest chance of the Inland Revenue ever having more inspectors for the sake of having more inspectors?

Mr. Green: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who has been so extremely agreeable during the whole debate, need not say that, because I was about to state exactly that myself. We are in such complete agreement that I do not think we need pretend to be in any contest about it. The point is to have an adequate staff. We are satisfied that to have anything else would be costly, cumbersome and wasteful. If we had too few it would be costly, and if we had too many it would be cumbersome and wasteful.

Mr. Woodburn: The point I was trying to make was that if the staff was not adequate—and I understand that there is always a back-log and pressure on the staff—it is a good investment, not a cost to the nation, to have the job done properly, because this is one Department in which the Government can earn more income.

Mr. Green: I entirely agree that the proof of the pudding is in the administrative cost. I do not think the right hon. Member and I are in disagreement. We note the point he has made and we shall seek to get this adequately serviced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Hopkins) asked whether decentralisation of Surtax is being seriously considered. The answer is, "Yes, it is". I repeat that an official decision on this should be taken on strictly administrative grounds. He can be absolutely assured that this point is being seriously considered and until a decision is taken it will go on being very actively and seriously considered.
In answer to the other point my hon. Friend made, the Board of Inland Revenue is as anxious as anyone to get its forms as simple, accurate and clear as possible. It has a genuine interest which matches the taxpayers' interest in terms of getting information in the simplest, clearest form possible, because the clearer and simpler the forms can be the less trouble there is for inspectors and other members of the Inland Revenue to explain and to waste their time and everyone's time. This is constantly being looked at. The only point about which one has to be careful, as I am sure my hon. Friend on reflection


will agree, is that Income Tax is governed by law and it has to be very precisely stated.
Quite often, there is a conflict between what one might term layman's language and the necessary legal definitions of what has to be done and what will stand up in a court of law and court of appeal if a case goes to appeal. That is the main difficulty in making in laymen's terms all forms as simple as we would desire them to be. Nevertheless, great efforts are being made to simplify the forms, I think with some success. Obviously it is of interest to the Inland Revenue to carry the process forward as far and as fast as can be done. That is in the general interest of the Board as well as of the taxpayer, so it is very unlikely that anyone will have to wait forty-three years for the burden of proof.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sowerby for the welcome he has given to the Bill and for the tribute he paid to the work done by the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue certainly deserves that tribute. He has had a lifelong interest in this subject, and I listened with great fascination to his description of its history. It was extremely worth while to have it delivered and to put it on the record. It was thoroughly interesting, and at times amusing. I am glad to know that the B.B.C. continues to have the good sense to employ his knowledge and talents on the programme he mentioned. I extend to him my good wishes that he can go on doing that work for many years.
As he will know, the Board of Inland Revenue is very keen to get this Bill. It has wanted it for some time and I am sure I am speaking for the Board when I say that its members will be grateful to the House today for the warm welcome so far given to the Bill and for the cooperative way in which the debate has been conducted. I hope the House may now be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to General Commissioners for the purposes of the income tax and their clerks and officers of Inland Reveille and to transfer from the General or other Commissioners to officers of Inland Revenue the powers of assessing income tax and related functions it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament—
(a) of payments to General Commissioners by way of travelling allowance or subsistence allowance, and
(b) of pensions or gratuities to or in respect of any full-time clerk to any body of General Commissioners.—[Mr. Green.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT (INCIDENTAL CHARGES)

Resolved,
That any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to General Commissioners for the Purposes of the income tax and their clerks and officers of Inland Revenue and to transfer from the General or other Commissioners to officers of Inland Revenue the powers of assessing income tax and related functions may include provisions imposing incidental charges to income tax for any year.—[Mr. Green.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.10 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is, I hope, non-controversial although somewhat technical. Its only object is to wind up the scheme of compensation for war damage which was introduced during the Second World War. It also transfers most of the remaining administrative responsibilities for this scheme to the Inland Revenue Department in order to effect administrative economies.
In view of the work done by the War Damage Commission, and to set the Bill in its proper place, it is only right for me to say a short word about the original war damage scheme and the Commission's work. The war damage compensation scheme was one of the success stories of the war and the immediate post-war period. In October, 1940, when Britain stood virtually alone and the Battle of Britain was being fought in the air, the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) announced that a comprehensive war damage scheme would be inaugurated at once.
As a result, in December, 1940, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Sir Kingsley Wood, introduced the Bill which became the War Damage Act, 1941. As Sir Kingsley Wood said at the time—as reported in HANSARD, 17th December, 1940; Vol. 367, c. 1125—the Bill was
an instrument of justice and an Act of social solidarity
spreading the burden of the war damage over the whole community. Incidentally, it reflected confidence in ultimate victory.
The War Damage Commission, under the able and energetic leadership of its first chairman, Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve—now Lord Silsoe set about its formidable task—and it was quite a task—with a will. Arrangements were made to deal with the various notifications of damage which came flowing in. There were about 4 million claims in respect of about 3½ million proper-

ties altogether. Sixteen regional offices were set up and technical staff in local offices, supplemented at the peak period by the use of private professional firms, assessed the extent of war damage and classified properties according to whether payment could be made for rebuilding or repair—which was a cost-of-work payment—or whether compensation should be paid for a total loss—which was a value payment. In due course the technical staff dealt with the specifications which were put in for repair work and assessed the proper cost of making good war damage.
We should reflect that under Part I of the Act, dealing with damage to property, the Commission paid over 4 million claims in respect of 3½ million separate properties, and the total so far paid approaches £1,300 million. Against this, £200 million was collected by the Inland Revenue Department for 1941–46 in the form of war damage contributions from property owners.
I should say a word about Part II of the War Damage Act, which dealt with goods and chattels. Part I dealt with properties in two ways, either value payments or cost-of-works payments. Part II of the Act dealt with goods and chattels, which were covered under two insurance schemes administered by the Board of Trade, one for business chattels and one for private chattels. On these alone large sums were paid out. About £117 million has been paid out in claims on private chattels. There are virtually no claims outstanding under this Part of the Act, with the possible exception of one or two arising from the erroneous inclusion of chattels in property.
This will give some measure of the work which has been done by the War Damage Commission and the compensation paid under the war damage scheme. But the House will agree that in 1964 it is high time that this scheme was wound up. The vast majority of the cases of war damage have already been disposed of, but there is a residue, and the outstanding liability—it is difficult to be precise—is estimated at about £20 million, mainly comprising cases in which a cost-of-works payment will be due if and when the damage is made good.
By and large the delays have been caused by waiting for the convenience of owners through difficulties of site development, and so on. The trouble is that unless action is taken to impose a time limit there is the possibility that such cases will drag on indefinitely, and meanwhile it is becoming harder and harder to distinguish between war damage and the ordinary dilapidation, and the provision of administrative machinery to deal with these cases is becoming increasingly wasteful.
For these reasons, in August, 1961, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, now my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, announced in reply to a Question that the Government intended to wind up the war damage scheme and to transfer the staff and responsibilities of the War Damage Commission to the Inland Revenue. Hon. Members who wish to look this up will find it in HANSARD, Vol. 645, c. 207. The details of the proposal were published in a White Paper, Cmnd. 1583, in December, 1961.
I do not want to weary the House with the full details of the scheme in the White Paper, because it is not precisely the scheme put forward in the Bill. Broadly speaking, the scheme outlined in the White Paper provided for the registration within a limited period of outstanding claims in respect of damage to land and buildings. In general, compensation would take the form of a value payment—that is to say, a payment based on the depreciation in value of the property—unless it could be shown that the damage could and would be made good within four years from the commencement of the scheme, subject to a possible extension for a few cases of exceptional magnitude, in which case the damage, when made good, would qualify for a cost-of-works payment.
At that time the outstanding liability for war damage compensation was put at about £40 million, but since then good progress has been made in reducing the volume of outstanding work, largely due to the announcement of the decision to wind up the war damage compensation scheme, which, I think, had something to do with persuading people to get on with the job.
The estimated outstanding liability is now down to about £20 It is possible to break this figure down in very rough terms. I would not like the House to think that I am giving a precise estimate, because these things are not easy to quantify exactly. In round figures this amount comprises about £1 million for dwelling houses, about £2 million for churches, about £5½ million for local authority and public buildings—libraries, public baths, and so on, of which £1½ million represents the claims in respect of County Hall and the Guildhall—and about £9 million for commercial property—such as public houses, hotels, offices and shops. In addition to this £17½ million, an estimate of £2½ million is made for contingencies and for the remaining few claims that might come forward on the Board of Trade side, the Part II claims on chattels, bringing the total probable liability to about £20 million.
During the last two years the outstanding liabilities for war compensation have been about halved. It is because of this reduction that we are putting forward in the Bill a simplified version of the scheme originally set out in the White Paper. The Bill proposes to dispense with the requirement of registration of claims. It simply provides that claims for payment must be presented within specified time limits.
The most important time limit is that contained in Clause 1. This provides that a claimant must make good war damage and claim a cost of works payment, or, alternatively, apply for a value payment for damage not made good, within a period of four years from the commencement of the Measure, when enacted, on 1st October, 1964. Clause 1(5) and Clauses 4 and 6 ensure that the time limit also applies to claims for other forms of war damage compensation payments, including the payments for the cost of clearing war damaged sites and the payments under the special arrangement for churches.
All claims in respect of the cost of temporary repairs to war damage should have been made a long time ago, and Clause 3 puls an end to any dormant claims of that sort as from the commencement of the Bill when enacted on 1st October, 1964. So the time limits in the Bill, basically four years from


the proposed commencement of the Measure, when enacted, on 1st October, 1964, are continued in Clause 1; and Clauses 4 and 6 extend them to the rather smaller compensation payments.
In Clause 7 a final time limit is laid down, which is ten years after the commencement of the Measure when enacted. Thus a time limit is laid down for the completion of all cases. Claims which have not been brought to a conclusion by then will be extinguished unless—the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will realise that this is most improbable—the Inland Revenue has itself been responsible for the delay.
The concentration of most of the remaining war damage work into the next four or five years as a result of the Bill will itself produce administrative economies and so will the rationalisation of the distribution of the remaining work between the Government Departments which the Bill brings about.
Under Clause 2 the functions of the War Damage Commission are transferred to the Board of Inland Revenue. The Revenue has been associated with this work in the past through its Valuation Office, and progress has already been made towards the integration of the Inland Revenue and the War Damage Commission, both of which are under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Johnston. The Revenue will take over the staff, as well as the functions, of the War Damage Commission, so there will be continuity of knowledge and experience. It will thus be seen that the transfer proposed in Clause 2 will go through with the utmost smoothness.
Clause 2 also transfers to the Inland Revenue the remaining functions of the Board of Trade in relation to the payment of compensation for war damage to business and private chattels. This work has virtually come to an end, except for a few cases which the War Damage Commission already handles as agent for the Board of Trade where a new claim in relation to chattels has arisen because the claimant has mistakenly regarded the chattels as being part of the land or buildings for the purposes of war damage compensation.
There is one small section of war damage work which will not be taken

over by the Inland Revenue. That is the compensation payable under the special arrangements for highways. This is covered in Clause 5, which provides that the work shall be carried out by the Minister of Transport in England and Wales and by the Secretary of State in Scotland. They are already closely associated with these arrangements.
Clause 8 extinguishes rights to payment of moneys out of the War Damage (Mutual Insurance Fund Unclaimed Balances) Account, which consists of moneys which have remained unclaimed since 1941.
I do not think that the other provisions of the Bill call for special comment now. They are consequential upon those main provisions and can more suitably be dealt with at a later stage.
A word is necessary about damage from any new incidents arising out of the past war which may occur in the future. Damage to land and property still occurs from time to time from the disposal of unexploded bombs and washed-up mines surviving from the last war. This damage has been very small in recent years. At present, it is dealt with under the War Damage Act, 1943, but the power to make payments under that Act is limited by the Bill to damage occurring before 1st October, 1964—that is, the vesting date of the Bill when enacted.
Any claims arising from damage which occurs after that will be dealt with by the War Office on the same basis as it deals with claims for damage to property arising from its training activities. Most of these payments are based on the cost of making good the damage. It is only exceptionally, where there is a great deal of damage and repair is uneconomic, that payment is limited to the depreciation in value.
I hope that the House will come to the conclusion that this is a useful Bill. It will bring to an end the existence of a body which has done useful and great work in the past. The proportion of work outstanding, as the figures I have quoted show, is remarkably small. I hope that the administrative economies and changes which the Bill introduces and the time limits it places on the payment of compensation will be considered reasonable. As the outstanding claims have been halved in the last two years,


I think that the House will agree that a period of four years is reasonable and adequate in which to settle the final claims.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

6.30 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: This seems to be a workmanlike and sensible Bill. The position can be gauged in one sense by contrasting the total sum paid out—I understand it to be about £1,300 million—with the claims outstanding, amounting, I understand, to about £20 million. One can further reinforce that consideration by remembering that the number of claims now outstanding is only half the number outstanding in August, 1961.
It is clear, therefore, that this gigantic and rather grim relic of the wartime period is now coming to a close and that, with a word of tribute and gratitude to the War Damage Commission and the excellent work it has done, we can all be glad to say "Goodbye" to this memory of the destruction and havoc wrought by the war in our country. It is high time that we should think of bringing the whole of this unhappy memory to an end. The Bill is adequately designed for this purpose, although there are a few comments I would like to make and questions I would like to pose.
The total amount of outstanding claims is about £20 million, but I do not know how many individual claims that figure represents. It may be difficult for the Financial Secretary to answer this and if he cannot give me an answer now I will understand. I ask this question because the work of the War Damage Commission is being transferred to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I understand that they are taking over the former staff of the War Damage Commission, including the valuation department which, I suppose, will supplement the Valuation Office which at present operates within the framework of the Inland Revenue.
Had we not been told that, the question would have presented itself whether an undue burden was not going to be placed on the Commissioners if they have to deal with a large number of individual claims, aggregating in all to

about £20 million, in addition to the heavy burden they already carry. Before I heard the Minister's remarks it had been my intention to ask how this matter would be dealt with. I wondered whether there would be the necessary expert advice, either within the present framework or whether the Commissioners would need to resort to outside sources. Apparently they will have adequate resources within the framework of the existing staff to obtain the necessary expert opinion about whether a claim is allowable and the amount at which it should be allowed.
I suppose that a prominent feature of the outstanding claims and the reason in many cases why they have been delayed for so long is that buildings may, after many years, show weakness or strain which expert advice can connect with a shock received from war damage. It is, I understand, a common feature of these claims that a building can be severely shaken during the war but that the damage is not discernible for some years, when the building begins to subside or show indications of weakness or strain.
Expert opinion can establish clearly that such damage was derived from injury not known at the time but caused to the structure by concussion of falling bombs. Wren that situation arises no doubt the ground of claim may not be known for many years; and the older the building gets the more serious is the damage when it ultimately emerges. I apprehend that that is the kind of situation in which these claims have been for so long delayed, up to 19 years after the war.
I was somewhat surprised at the Minister's comments about the contrast in respect of outstanding claims for private dwellings, amounting to about £1 million, and the amount estimated to be outstanding for commercial property namely, £9 million. I do not know why there should be that contrast. One would have thought that those who use commercial property would be as alive to the claims they may have as those who occupy private dwellings. Is the reason because the total aggregate of damage done to commercial property was much in excess of that done to private dwellings? That may be the reason, but it would be difficult to suppose that the ratio is nine to one, as it appears to be in terms of the outstand


ing claims. I understand that the claims in respect of chattels have almost entirely dried up. There are few outstanding and that can be said to be an aspect of war damage which has already, by the process of time, finally been brought to a close.
I would like to know how much is in the account described in Clause 8 as the "unclaimed balances account". The Minister said that that related to claims which have not been pursued since 1941. I suppose that many unfortunate people who might have had claims either perished during the war or have since died and that their descendants or heirs, or other personal representatives, cannot now be ascertained. Thus a sum of money slumbers in this unclaimed balances account. How much is it?
We should all be anxious not accidentally to put an end to a claim which is really a live one—that we do not, by the stroke of a pen in an Act, deprive some one of a claim which, had he known it existed, he would be only too glad to assert. I hope that adequate steps have been or will be taken to make known the existence of these claims. There may be children or grandchildren who would be glad to find that they were entitled to receive a few hundred pounds, which might be a relief to them in difficult circumstances. It would be in the public interest, and a measure of elementary justice, to see that the widest publicity is given to the existence of claims which have not been preferred. We should ensure that legitimate claims are not merely extinguished.
Are the amounts in the unclaimed balances account small or large ones? Is the sort of problem in Clause 8 one of claims of wide variety, with several claims worth many thousands of pounds, or is it a problem of claims by small people in respect of many dwelling houses concerning sums of £50, £100 or £200? If so, it is very important that a great effort should be made to seek the identity of the potential claimants so that what is rightfully theirs can be paid to them.
Those are the general comments that I wished to make. It is surprising in a sense that not less than £5½ million is estimated to be the amount of the outstanding claims in respect of public

buildings. One would have thought that public authorities would not only have been alive to the possibility of obtaining reimbursement for damage but would have had at their disposal the means necessary to prefer the claims and the necessary advice and legal assistance to make certain that claims due in respect of public buildings—claims, therefore, due to the public—were adequately and promptly preferred.
No doubt there is a very good reason for that. It may be that the £5½ million is attributable to damage which has only barely begun to manifest itself. I should like to know the basis on which the figure is estimated. If it can be said that an estimated amount of £5½ million is outstanding, there must be some basis on which that figure has been arrived at. In other words, in some way damage approximating to that amount must have made its presence known. The Minister stated that a large amount of the claims was attributable to the fact that cost of works payments had not yet been made. Therefore, the figure in respect of public buildings must be attributable more to the cost of works payments side than the value side. Perhaps we could have some more explanation of how that happens to be the case.
This is a necessary and sensible Bill. Its provisions seem to be businesslike and likely to achieve the desired end. When the whole matter has been adequately and properly wound up, we shall all be glad to forget the existence of war damage legislation and hope that the occasion for it will never recur.

6.42 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I am sure that the whole House will profoundly agree with the last remark of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I should like to say how much I appreciate the fact that the Economic Secretary opened his speech in the way he did rather than contenting himself with a mere formal recital of the contents of the Bill. He referred to the original War Damage Act, and paid tributes to which I hope to refer later.
My right hon. and learned Friend has said that this is an unhappy memory that we are recalling tonight. It is also a very proud memory. One might be


pardoned for quoting Milton and saying:
Nothing is here for tears…".
We are looking back for a moment on a very significant aspect of the last war.
I want, first, to take the opportunity provided by the Bill of expressing the thanks of Southampton, which was a great town until yesterday and today is a great city, for all the good that has been done to it and the other blitzed cities of England by the War Damage Act, 1943. To me, this debate has something of a touch of nostalgia. My maiden speech was a plea for the blitzed cities which had borne the brunt of the Second World War. We had some help, but not enough, we thought then, and still feel, from post-war Labour Governments as well as post-war Conservative Governments.
The cities which had been destroyed, or half destroyed, were battling against the problems of reconstruction, problems of reconstruction common to all other places as well as ours but made much more severe by their war losses, including the loss of thousands of houses. In Southampton, a quarter of our schools were damaged and one-third of our docks and factories, and we suffered the destruction of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of property and lost thousands of pounds of rateable value.
It is interesting that it should have been the Economic Secretary who opened the debate. I remember taking to his father, when he was the Minister of Housing and Local Government, a deputation of Parliamentarians from blitzed cities and having really sympathetic and considerate treatment from the former Prime Minister, even if we did not get all we asked for.
What saved Southampton citizens, as distinct from Southampton city, was that individual citizens in the blitzed cities were covered by the War Damage Act. Under that Act, by a piece of specific national insurance, Britain as a nation underwrote the grievous loss sustained by individuals or businesses, and even communities when churches, houses and schools were damaged and destroyed. Every British citizen paid his insurance premium, and the lucky people were those who did not have to cash the

policy at the end. I am glad that the Economic Secretary pointed out that embarking on this insurance scheme in 1943 was a declaration of faith that Britain would survive the war.
Claims were handled fairly and efficiently, and most, but not all, of the claimants also claimed fairly. Those who had lost their homes got, wherever possible, not a cash value for their house, but a replacement. Those who suffered severe damage had the damage made good. Those who lost their belongings were compensated for the loss. It is worth remembering, however, that very few of the citizens who lost their homes really got back what they had lost.
It is also worth recalling, if only for a moment, the courage and devotion of those who stuck it out in the London blitz, the Coventry blitz and the Southampton blitz—the housewives as well as the factory workers; the children of Britain; the 1 million evacuees; the children who came home from evacuation because the blitz happened much later than we thought; the teaching of children under terrible conditions in the blitzed cities; the civilian courage which equalled the courage of men in the fighting line. No War Damage Act could hope to compensate for. That courage and that grim loss of life.
I hope that it will not be considered a constituency speech if I recall my own city, which was blitzed to bits and yet was the foal point through which more than 2 million Americans passed on their way to Europe; with its civic and industrial life continuing right through the war, and for 10 years after it—and only those who lived in our blitzed cities after the war can know how depressing it was to live in them then. It is not too much to say that during all that time the sympathetic treatment of the War Damage Commission was like a beacon light to the citizens of our blitzed towns and cities. Tonight, we are winding up what I regard as a great national, humane and socially just enterprise.
One of the distressing features of war damage was that very often it did not reveal itself until years after the war. It was very difficult for blitzed persons to claim correctly, and it was difficult for surveyors to estimate correctly. All the estimation and the claiming, or much of it, was done under war conditions, in the


earlier stages. I know from the experience of many of my friends in the blitzed cities that very often a house which, apart from a few broken windows or shattered roofs, looked all right, years later would reveal severe structural defects caused by the shaking it had had during the war which were not evident at the time. In the first impact of disaster, many people were happy enough to have just a home or a shelter over their heads or first-aid repairs, and, in spite of all that the Government did to make the work of the Commission widely known, they did not claim all that they were entitled to.
Therefore, hon. Members who, like myself, have been representing the blitzed areas have been presenting year by year and month by month to the War Damage Commission late claims. In my own city the latest was last year, in respect of the famous Church of St. Mary—the church of the Bells of St. Mary—which sustained very grave damage which had escaped notice until about three or four years ago.
I pay tribute to the War Damage Commissioners for the way in which they handled the monumental first task that we gave them of the distribution of more than £1,000 million and also for the very careful and sympathetic consideration that they have given to all the tricky cases which hon. Members have put to them in later years.
I realise how difficult it must have been to separate the wheat from the chaff; to separate those who in genuine ignorance failed to claim their entitlement, those who later genuinely discovered damage of which they were unaware in 1945 or 1946. from those merely trying to scrounge from the insurance fund every penny they could get, including money to which they were not entitled. I am sure that those connected with St. Mary's Church. Southampton, would particularly wish me to thank the War Damage Commissioners for their very sympathetic treatment of this latest claim, possibly the last that will be made from Southampton.
The time limits provided in the Bill are reasonable, and the Bill itself is drafted in the fair and sympathetic way that has marked the whole of this episode in the life of our nation. It is, perhaps, wise

now to wind up the Commission, and to transfer its functions to the Inland Revenue and the Board of Trade, as this Measure does, but I hope that, as we wind up the Commission, the whole House will echo the tribute paid by the Economic Secretary—a tribute that I have tried to underline—to successive chairmen of the Commission, to the great chairman who started it, Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, and to the Commission's staff, for a piece of work well done.
All those connected with the Commission have had a very complex, a very difficult and very thankless task. They have acquitted themselves well. I am sure that I speak for all the members of the old non-party blitz committee, consisting of hon. Members fighting for the blitzed cities, when I say how much we have appreciated the courteous, sympathetic and just way in which all our requests were treated.
I would, finally, underline what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. In this Bill we enact that after four years no further claims can be made, and I hope that as a result of this debate the date of the time limits which we are fixing will become widely known throughout the country and that the Government will see that, as far as is humanly possible, no citizen is deprived through ignorance of what is his due.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I want to reinforce the final words of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). I represent the Burgh of Clydebank, which was badly bitzed in 1941. For the first two or three years after I first came to this House in 1951 it was my regular function, week after week, to support claims to the War Damage Commission for damage done in that burgh. Many of the domestic claims were very serious, some heartrending, but I always felt that some of the most unfortunate claims were those made on behalf of churches used by small congregations, who very often found it very difficult to claim enough to replace their buildings.
This is the second time today that the House has been debating the Second Reading of a Bill in which Scotland has an interest, in which the Secretary


of State for Scotland has an important part to play, and his Department in Edinburgh is involved, but no Scottish Minister has been present to answer questions that Scottish hon. Members might wish to put. It is, perhaps, fortunate that I have no purely Scottish question to ask.
I support everything that has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen. Those of us who lived and worked in bombed cities during and after the war can wholeheartedly support the Economic Secretary when he says that this insurance scheme was a great act of faith in Britain's ultimate success. It was drilled into me as a boy that saving, the act of preparing for the future, was not just a speculative act., or one taken for easy or quick gain, but an act of faith in oneself and in the society in which one lived.
The war damage scheme was a great act of faith which gave a great deal of confidence to people, and lifted their morale in those difficult times. It is unfortunate that only now, 19 years after the end of the war, are we able to wind up this tremendous enterprise of collective compensation of people for their individual losses. Nevertheless, it is an example of what a well-organised community with faith in itself can do.
We have, with reasonable equity and justice, repaired the material losses suffered by a large section of the community, and it is a wonderful achievement. Unfortunately, there are some losses that we can never repair, but it is a great compliment to the nation that we can now rest assured that, in the main, we have replaced for individuals the material things lost as a result of enemy action.
Let us hope that we never have to reintroduce a war damage insurance scheme again, though we know that, if we had to, our people could again carry it through with success.

6.58 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): I must, first, express my thanks, and those of the War Damage Commission, for the way in which the Bill has been received, and for the extremely well-earned and agreeable

phrases used about the work of the Commission.
When the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) asked how many claims remained outstanding he was good enough to say that if I could not answer him he could understand why. However, I understand that the total number of claims outstanding is about 4,500. What I cannot do is to relate, so to speak, the size to the claims. I can do that in one case, which I shall use later to illustrate another point.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked whether the Inland Revenue Department will have adequate staff and, with his usual perspicacity, was able almost to answer his own question. The Inland Revenue will have adequate staff because it will take on the necessary numbers from the Commission itself. It will continue to have what it most certainly needs—and needs, perhaps, more now in the closing stage than at the opening—an I that is really expert guidance, so that good and proper distinction can be made between what is due to old age and what is traceable to war damage. That distinction gets progressively more difficult to make, and is one of the most substantial reasons for this Bill. It will continue to have precisely the same form of expert advice that the Commission has received up to date. I believe that this is a perfectly satisfactory and good arrangement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention, quite correctly, to the difference between the remaining claims on houses and the remaining claims on commercial premises. There is a very good reason for this. A good many of the commercial premises, for example, were public houses. It by no means follows that it is desirable that a badly damaged public house should be rebuilt. Some other decision may ultimately be taken about its fate. This is really the reason why those claims hung fire longer than the claims on houses. Much the same consideration goes to claims lodged on behalf of public authorities.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is it not a fact that there is still a very large stock of public houses held in abeyance under the licensing planning system? If so, will the Bill have any effect on that?

Mr. Green: It will not have any effect on that system. The plain point that planning permission would be required under certain circumstances is a further reason why some of these claims hold on for longer than others. All the claims are known. This is the main point. There is no real dispute about their existence. All that we are seeking now is to secure a point in time, not too far removed, at which they will be determined. I cannot see any special grounds for dispute.
I said that I would give one illustration of the public authority case. The Guildhall and County Hall, I understand, are responsible for about £1½ million, which goes a long way to explaining the apparent imbalance between outstanding claims on different classes of property.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a good point about the unclaimed balances account. The total, I understand, is about £6,000. I also understand—I should like to check this—that no claim has been made since 1946. This does not invalidate the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made. I do not believe that I can carry what he said further, except to say that I entirely accept the propriety of his observations about this, and that we must do our level best to make sure that there is nothing unclaimed through ignorance, for example, which is something no one would want to have on his conscience. Perhaps the later stages of the Bill will permit a further examination of this point. It is not a very large one in terms of money, but I could not agree more that in terms of principle it is very important.
I trust that covers the points which the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised as well as I can deal with them at the moment. I cannot do better than end my own short contribution to this debate by saying how much I appreciate what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). He

put the matter very well indeed. It was a very richly deserved tribute to the people of this country as well as to the War Damage Commission. I believe that the words he used will give all the more pleasure because they have been so well earned. I am sure that they were proper observations to make as we start the final legal process of winding up what was a very large, a very rewarding and a very inspiring operation in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. R. W. Elliott.]

Committee Tomorrow.

WAR DAMAGE [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No, 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purpposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for expediting the completion of payments under the War Damage Act 1943, the War Damage (Public Utility Undertakings, etc.) Act 1949 and the War Damage (Clearance Payments) Act 1960; to dissolve the War Damage Commission and transfer to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or, in the case of payments under section 71 of the said Act of 1943, to the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State, the functions of the War Damage Commission and any function which remain to be performed under those Acts by the Board of Trade; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required for paying remuneration or allowances to War Damage Reviewing Commissioners appointed under the said Act of the present Session; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of Damage (Mutual Insurance Funds Un-moneys standing to the credit of the War claimed Balances) Account.—[Mr. Green.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (HOUSEHOLD DELIVERY SERVICE)

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Inland Post Regulations 1963 (S.I., 1963, No. 2137), dated 30th December 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th January, be annulled.
I do not intend to make a long speech. The question of the Household Delivery Service has been ventilated once before in the House, but in view of feeling among householders and postmen and of the way in which the service will be used, it is absolutely essential that we should express in the House our reasons for thinking that Regulation 25, which is embodied in the 1963 Regulations, should not go through.
In last week's debate not one speaker, Conservative, Liberal or Labour, gave wholehearted approval to the service. Every hon. Member, and particularly the Conservative Members who contributed to the debate, required specific assurances from the Postmaster-General, or, on that occasion, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, before the Regulations were approved. The Chief Secretary wound up the debate. I do not know why. He knows nothing about the Post Office. We had from him no reply and no assurances—only a few gibes, particularly against the Liberal Party and its minibus. The right hon. Gentleman never relieved any of the concern felt by the National Union of Post Office Workers, and neither did he assure any hon. Member opposite about the service, with the consequence that a number of abstentions were recorded that evening.
On this occasion the Postmaster-General is present and we hope that he will intervene and treat the subject a little more seriously than either he or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did last week. We have a number of questions to address to him. Is this service really necessary? The right hon. Gentleman argues, first, that advertisers are "pinching" Post Office business and, secondly, that only after examining similar services overseas did he think that this would be a useful service and one which might improve Post Office finances.
Is it not a fact that private companies which have been sending out circulars and advertisements still operate a cheaper service and that it is doubtful how much traffic the right hon. Gentleman will take away from them? Could not the overseas guide be misleading? The right hon. Gentleman well knows that there is opposition to this kind of service in some countries and that it is falling off in others. Switzerland has been quoted. There, the administration is now having to hive off some of this circular delivery traffic to private agencies because it is interfering with the first-class service. There has been no market research here. There has been no test of public feeling. The right hon. Gentleman has never sought the advice of the Post Office advisory councils and he has insisted on introducing the service in spite of the decision made against it by the annual conference of the National Union of Post Office Workers.
Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must prove the necessity of the new service. Does he think that it will be profitable? On every occasion he has said that he hopes to make in the first year a profit at the rate of £300,000 a year. Let us examine what this means. First, the right hon. Gentleman must attract traffic from private agencies which at the moment are providing the service more cheaply than the new service will be able to do. Secondly, those who use the Post Office Printed matter service, that is the 2½.d. mail, will be tempted to use this service. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's printed paper service will lose revenue and what little he may gain on the new service he may well lose on that one.
The first-class mail service may well be affected. Undoubtedly, if the circulars are to go out on early morning deliveries those deliveries will be retarded. The right hon. Gentleman's advice in the first instance to head postmasters was that they should go out where possible with the first mail I hope that he will assure us today that this will not happen. We cannot afford to do any damage to the first morning delivery. Far too many complaints have been made about that already.
Can the sample service pay? The postman carries a 35 lb. pouch and he will be expected to take out samples possibly


of soap, detergents, toothpaste and drugs. He cannot take enough for the whole of the walk and either he will have to double back on his walk or extra postmen will have to come into the area to deliver the samples. The right hon. Gentleman states specifically in his advertisements that sizes up to 12 in. long, 4¾ in. wide and ¾ in. thick will be allowed.
How many of these will a postman be able to get into his pouch? This inevitably means, especially in areas where the postmen are already working overtime and where there is a shortage of postmen, that this service will not pay. The right hon. Gentleman will be relying upon the circulars to try to pay for the sample service.
We should, therefore, like the right hon. Gentleman to assure us as factually as possible that these services will pay. He never thought this matter out. The service was hastily introduced. He advertised the service on 6th January. All the advertisement material went out to the post offices on 20th January, but within three days of advertising it the right hon. Gentleman had stopped the service completely. If he had thought of all the implications he would have been prepared and not perturbed. Therefore, the service was hastily introduced.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Would the hon. Gentleman say at what stage my right hon. Friend consulted the National Union of Post Office Workers?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Member will find out, if he questions his right hon. Friend, that the union has opposed the scheme for the past eight months, ever since the Postmaster-General first intimated that he intended to introduce it.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the hon. Member then withdraw his charge that my right hon. Friend was hasty in his introduction of the scheme?

Mr. Mason: No, it was hastily introduced, before the right hon. Gentleman properly thought out all the implications and the dangerous aspects of starting for the first time to use a Government Department and uniformed civil servants to distribute advertisements and

political propaganda. I intend to go into detail on that subject.
After the suspension, the Postmaster-General, realising that he had not thought the scheme out properly, sent out fresh instructions to head postmasters. He said that they must not allow racialist literature or literature which would be offensive to young people to be delivered. All the postmasters are in the invidious position of being censors and sifters. They have the Post Office "bible" which gives blanket instructions that no matter may go through which is libellous, obscene or might cause a breach of the peace, but now they have the extra instructions about racialist literature and literature offensive to young people.
Apart from advertisements and simple matter, what will now go through the sieve? Only political propaganda. Is not this, therefore, the reason why the right hon. Gentleman hastily allowed the service to come into being, and will not the big users be the Tory "front" organisations who spent in 1958, and who intend to spend now, many thousands of pounds on anti-Labour and anti-nationalisation propaganda?
The Economic League spent £208,000 in 1958 alone. Aims of Industry, which is clamouring to use the service, spent in that year £107,000. Stewarts and Lloyds is starting its campaign now. It spent £269,000 in 1958. There were others of these Tory trumpeters under their private enterprise titles. Altogether, they spent £1,435,000 in that one year, 1958, on anti-Labour and anti-nationalisation propaganda.
As one political writer said:
The amount spent on the anti-nationalisation campaigns was enormous by political standards; it was about four times what the Conservative party was spending on advertising in the same period and fourteen times the Labour party's outlay on public relations. It was £400,000 more than the total expenses of all the candidates in the general election.
I suspect that one of the reasons for the introduction of the service at this time is that it is a method whereby the Government, via the Postmaster-General, can help their Tory friends to cheat the Representation of the People Act.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Disgraceful. Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Mason: I have already given way twice to the hon. Member. I am addressing the Postmaster-General and not the hon. Member. The Postmaster-General has a chance to reply and can go into details if he wishes.
The right hon. Gentleman now has the Martens and anti-trade unionists who have printed 250,000 leaflets. Some have already gone out by hand, but if these people cannot find enough handpicked helpers they will use the Post Office service to deluge chosen letterboxes with this propaganda. Now, Industrial Aids Limited has recently been employed by the Tory Party to assist it in the propaganda drive in the L.C.C. campaign
I say all this to show that there has been a switch in G.P.O. thinking and policy with the introduction of this service. I draw attention to correspondence between Transport House and the right hon. Gentleman's Department when Transport House was seeking permission for a franking slogan on envelopes. On 17th May, the public relations officer of the G.P.O. wrote to the director of publicity of the Labour Party and said:
Thank you very much for your letter of 16th May and for telling me about the envelope labels and the franking slogan. I would like to consider these because, as you probably know, one of the conditions of the use of franking slogans, and so on, is that the slogans must not be controversial. It may be that some people in this country might not necessarily agree with your slogan and might feel that it was definitely controversial. I will, however, write to you again as soon as possibly can.
On 30th May, a further letter went to Transport House from the Department, saying:
So far as the envelope labels, which you are proposing to have affixed to individual private correspondence, are concerned, we can have no objection provided that they are used on the address side of the envelope and that they cause no embarrassment to our sorters.
The letter goes on to say:
On the second of your points, I am afraid that I cannot give you such a favourable reply. People are liable to associate slogans in postmarks with the Post Office, and it is for ibis reason that we must forbid the use of any slogan which might be deemed controversial. I am sure you will agree that, by the very nature of things, politics fall into this category.
The right hon. Gentleman will see from that correspondence that the real G.P.O. objections were that it could be

seen, that it could be read, that it might be embarrassing, and that it was politically controversial. May not all these leaflets be the same?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevin): I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. The reason why the second request from Transport House was turned down was simply that it was, apparently, the desire of Transport House to print a political slogan over the Post Office postmark, which is quite a different thing from a slogan on an envelope.

Mr. Mason: I am sorry to disagree. That is getting away from the real point which is at the heart of it—
I am sure you will agree that, by the very nature of things, politics fall into this category"—
and the Post Office did not want to embarrass the sorters. Without any doubt at all, it appears from what was said that the reason the slogan could not be allowed was that it could be seen, it could be read, it might be embarrassing, it was politics, and it was controversial.
The same applies to these leaflets: they can be seen, they can be read, they may be embarrassing to postmen or sorters, and they ire certainly controversial. Why has there been this switch which now allows open political propaganda to be circulated via the General Post Office and this special service? Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, he will still leave a suspicion in our minds that it has been purposely done to allow the Tory front organisations, these vast spenders on anti-Labour literature, a cheap, easy and guaranteed access to every home.
What about the opting-out procedure? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware, because he will have had telephone messages and letters, especially from his head postmasters because they have been swamped with inquiries, that people wand: to opt out. If a householder wishes to opt out of the service, how is he to do it? Some people are saying that they will put "No circulars" on the gatepost, or they will put the stuff back in envelopes and send them unstamped to the Postmaster-General, to Aims of Industry, and so on. This is a matter of public concern.


Many people do not want to receive advertisements, let alone political propaganda, on their mat every morning. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a little time in explaining to us what directives he has now sent out to head postmasters on this matter.
Now, a few words about the postmen. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, staff relations in the Post Office are now at their lowest ebb. I think it fair to say that they are the worst in living memory. The general secretary of the U.P.W. said only a few days ago that staff relations in the Post Office were the worst he has known them in his 30 years' experience. Post Office workers were incensed by the right hon. Gentleman's low wages policy for postmen. In spite of very strong and persistent opposition to the introduction of this scheme, the right hon. Gentleman still decided to steam-roller it through.
However, I say to the postmen that all the democratic avenues for opposing the introduction of the service have been used. There was a Parliamentary lobby. I think that it was the first time that the U.P.W. had lobbied in Parliament, which shows the concern it feels. Secondly, there have been deputations by the U.P.W. executive to the Postmaster-General himself. We have had a censure debate, and finally, we are praying now against the Regulations. I only hope that, in the event of our being defeated by the vote tonight, the postmen will not take any untoward industrial action which would turn public opinion against them, especially at a time when they have public sympathy. The executive of the Union of Post Office Workers has fought the scheme constitutionally, and it is now entitled to the support and loyalty of its membership.
In conclusion, I say this to the Minister. He is the head of a great Department, a Department which has a fine record as a public service. It is a fascinating and interesting Department which is rapidly growing in importance. The Minister has broadcasting and television under his authority, and he is responsible in part also for the introduction of satellite communications. His Department is now girdling the world with telephone cables. He is responsible

for international broadcasting which is bringing nations closer together, and, indeed, he is partly responsible for "selling Britain".
The Post Office is no longer a "Cinderella" Ministry. I appeal to the Postmaster-General not to besmirch it with petty, dubious and unwanted innovations, especially these which smack of commercialism, and not to allow his Department to be used as a tool of the Tory Party.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I share with the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) an admiration for this great public institution, the Post Office. I listened with pleasure to some of the sentiments about the greatly enlarged responsibilities of the Postmaster-General with which he ended his speech, and I share in his admiration of the way in which my right hon. Friend has carried out his responsibilities in those wider fields.
The hon. Gentleman's speech contained many contradictions. I shall try to deal with some of them, and, no doubt, my hon. Friends will deal with others. He made much play of the fact, which he stated, that there had been no unreserved support for the scheme from this side of the House when it was last debated. On that occasion, we had limited time for debate. There was another important subject down for discussion that day, and several hon. Members who wished to take part were unable to do so. I was one of those. In spite of the fact that I knew that, if I stood in my place, I should have the same chance as any hon. Member to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I thought that there was a considerable pressure of speakers and, because my chances were small even by the law of averages, I decided that I for one would not try to intervene on that occasion.
Now, the subject is raised again. No doubt there will be some acrimonious arguments. My speech may contain one or two inflammatory sentences—I am prepared to argue the merits of this case with any hon. Member—but it will to some extent also be exploratory. We have the benefit of my right hon. Friend's presence this evening, and he is in the best possible position to answer all the allegations which are being made.
The hon. Member for Barnsley said that there were other services apart from the proposed Post Office Household Delivery Service which were cheaper, and he did not think that this service would be a success because it would not be an economic one and people would not use it since it did not offer a good and cheap service. He said this at the beginning. At the end of his speech, he said something about wicked Tory spenders who would get a cheap, easy and guaranteed access to every household. The hon. Gentleman must concede that there was a contradiction between those two statements.

Mr. Mason: Not at all. In order to send printed matter through the G.P.O. service now, people must purchase envelopes, see that they are addressed and make sure that each carries a 2½d stamp. It is an expensive service. If people want an alternative unaddressed delivery service, they must use a private agency, which, of course, does not guarantee access to every home. These agencies are unofficial. They cannot be relied on. But the Postmaster-General has stepped in now with a service, which is cheaper than the rate service, though more expensive than the private agency service, but guaranteeing access to every home.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Member is an ingeniously argumentative character. I must leave the House to decide whether he contradicted himself in the course of his speech.

Mr. A. R. Wise: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cooke: Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?

Mr. Wise: I was just agreeing with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Cooke: Then perhaps my hon. Friend will do so on his feet.
The hon. Member for Barnsley suggested that this service would interfere with the first class mail service. I should have thought that the regulations in the Post Office Guide, July, 1963, edition, Supplement No. 5, January, 1964, so tied up the user of this service that it would be almost impossible for it to clash with the interests of the first class mail. There are all kinds of conditions of acceptance and conditions

under which these circulars will be delivered. There are restrictions on postings. They will not be accepted on Saturdays, Sundays or public and bank holidays, or during the period from 8th to 27th December. How right that is. We all know that the service is overloaded at that time. All this would seem to take care of the hon. Member's argument. I do not think that he has made a very good case. He was clutching at every conceivable objection to this service.
This is the third time that the House has had the opportunity to discuss this matter. Perhaps we shall be treated to a fourth. Perhaps it will be pursued in another place. As I say, the hon. Member had to grasp at every possible argument. No doubt the House will see from the regulations that the first class mail will not be interfered with. Surely the early delivery which we all hope for in our homes will not be affected. Surely we shall not have the spectacle of the staggering postman with a great pack on his back laden with bars of soap and boxes of detergent. All this is taken care of in the regulations.
If the Post Office has surplus space in its delivery vans—and many of us, certainly in the country, know that when a van comes to a house it often is not full—postmen will be able to deliver samples in the country areas and make money for the Post Office. They will be travelling with their van not empty but full of custom from which the Post Office will, I hope, reap a handsome profit. Having studied the regulations with immense care, I do not feel there is any dander that the first class mail and important matters will be interfered with by this service. The regulations tie the matter up.
The hon. Member made much play with the fact that my right hon. Friend had introduced this service and then suspended it. However one tries to construe the facts, my right hon. Friend suspended the service because there was an outcry against it from certain people—mostly from right hon. and hon. Members opposite and particularly a certain right hon. Member about whom I will have more to say in a moment and whose name is mentioned in one of the pamphlets concerned. It was because of that that my right hon. Friend temporarily


withdrew the service pending discussion here. Surely that is the right way to go about the matter out of the courtesy to the House. If the House felt that this service should be looked into more carefully, my right hon. Friend acted with absolute propriety in withdrawing it.
I do not want to weary the House endlessly with answering the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley—he and I have our differences—but I feel that I must challenge some of the things that he said about the enormous expenditure by what he called, I think, Tory front organisations. Surely the essence of all this propaganda is anti-nationalisation. [An HON. MEMBER: "And anti-Socialism."] Anti-Socialism as well, as an hon. Member says. Nationalisation and Socialism are the same thing; nobody can escape from that. There are other aspects of the Socialist creed, other symptoms of the disease—[Interruption.] I do not think I can define Conservatism within the scope of the short speech which I hope to make.
Let me return to the charge which the hon. Member made that Tory front organisations were indulging in vast expenditure on anti-Nationalisation propaganda. Surely they are entitled to do that. They are protecting the interests of their shareholders. I expected a derisive laugh at that remark. They are protecting the interests of their workers. [Laughter.] That produces nothing more than a derisive laugh from hon. Members opposite. This is what these people are trying to do. They are fighting for their very life. They sincerely believe that their method of operation will be severely damaged by nationalisation, that many of their workers will lose their jobs, and that the industries will be less profitable and the workers will not receive a proper reward for their work.
I leave that aspect of the matter. The hon. Member dragged it in as part of his argument, but it is not what we want to discuss this evening. I should say, in passing, that the so-called great Tory front organisations are not alone in this campaign. If the hon. Member knew what the Tobacco Workers' Union laid on every workbench in the Imperial Tobacco Company's factories shortly

before polling day at the last election, he would be ashamed of what some of his friends were up to.
The hon. Member suggested that this was a way in which a political party could cheat the Representation of the People Act, which deals with the amount of money which should be spent at election time. At the three Parliamentary elections in which I have been a candidate I have never used all the allowed money on my campaign. There must be many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have never used their maximum permitted allowance. It is not right to suggest that here is some back door way of financing a campaign. The maximum sum allowed is very seldom completely used.
The hon. Member ended with a few words to the postmen. I imagine that he was addressing the postmen through you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say this about the position of the postmen, through you, Mr. Speaker. We all like our postmen—I hope we do. We all regard him as being a pleasant and helpful member of the community. Some of the trouble which has occurred has been due to a lack of unanimity, to differences within the union where relationships are said to be so low at present. My right hon. Friend will be able to deal with this at greater length. Surely some of the difficulties have arisen from a lack of decision and a going back on previous decisions by the Union of Post Office Workers. It is not fair to say that it is my right hon. Friend's harsh or ill-considered action which has caused this difficulty. There are differences among these people, and they have not been able to tell him what their mind was. That is bound to make for difficulties.
No doubt hon. Members opposite will say that my right hon. Friend should not have introduced the service if he was not sure what view the Post Office workers would take about it. If one takes this attitude one never gets anything done at all. Her Majesty's Government are often criticised for not having ascertained the views of their supporters before doing something. But when one asks for the views of one's supporters on anything one often gets a mixed bag of arguments and one has


to make a decision. It is the Government's duty to govern and make decisions, and it is a Minister's duty to run his Department and not to be run by it. That is the only sentiment uttered by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) with which I agree.
My right hon. Friend was right to introduce this service, because he is trying to make more money for the Post Office. The hon. Member for Barnsley said that the pay and conditions of the Post Office workers were bad. We are hoping that they will receive an increase. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have something to say about that. Many Government services have received an increase recently. How can the hon. Member reconcile his claim that the Post Office workers are not getting enough money with his opposition to a service which may bring in more money and make it possible for the workers to be paid more? If they are to get overtime for working this service as well, there will be great opportunity here for earning a little extra. It is incomprehensible—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Barnsley wish to intervene? I will be happy to give way. It is difficult to contain my speech within the short time which I intended if he continues to interrupt from a sitting position. No doubt, my right hon. Friend will deal with the other details which were raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley but which I have been unable to cope with.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: May I ask the hon. Member a question about overtime? Is he aware that in many districts breaking point has been reached through overtime being worked in areas where there is already a serious shortage of postal staff? How are we to deal with this extra work in such areas? If the hon. Member cannot answer, no doubt the Postmaster-General will try when he replies.

Mr. Cooke: Perhaps I might have a shot at it and, if I do not succeed, my right hon. Friend may be able to answer at greater length. The whole tone of the prospectus of the scheme is that the Post Office will carry out this service where it finds it possible to do so and it will not allow it to interfere with its existing important services. I have no doubt

that my right hon. Friend will be able to give chapter and verse from the Regulations. As I see it, however, there are adequate safeguards to prevent an overburdened service—as it is in some, but not all, districts—from being swamped.
To return to my case concerning the country districts, I know that the Post Office van which calls at our house regularly in the morning before I am awake and in the afternoon is certainly not full to capacity. Once when the door was open I saw that there was practically nothing in it. There are opportunities for using the existing facilities to a profitable end.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. Member telling us that the Post Office will determine, where this new service will be operated?

Mr. Cooke: I cannot pursue the matter endlessly with the hon. Member, because my right hon. Friend has all the details and other hon. Members might be disappointed in their efforts to speak in the debate if they prolong my remarks unduly.

Mr. Spriggs: Answer.

Mr. Cooke: The answer is in the regulations. It will be within the power of the Post Office not to get itself swamped with a vast amount of this stuff to interfere with the firstclass mail. The regulations say so. My right hon. Friend will give the details.
I turn to my general remarks about the service before coming on to some of the detailed criticisms. We have virtually debated the subject twice already, with one full-length debate and another period of to-ing and fro-ing across the Floor of the House. There have been long discussions and one might well take the view that all that could usefully be said on this subject had been said. I am surprised that it cannot now be left alone, but hon. Members opposite have raised it again tonight and it is only fair that those of us who are interested in the Post Office should give the House our views and, possibly, be contradicted by other hon. Members, so that we do not waste the time which has been allotted for this debate.
I hesitated to intervene but for the fact that time this evening seems to be unlimited, there does not appear to be


a large number of hon. Members on either side who are interested in the subject, and one might use this opportunity of one of those rare occasions when it is possible to speak in the House without crowding out one's hon. Friends or opponents, giving the House one's views and learning from subsequent speeches.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Barnsley that the Post Office is a great national institution with a fine record of public service. But it is not a fossilised institution. It has progressed with the times. We have seen the introduction of the letter service in its various forms. We saw the introduction of postage stamps in which this country was a pioneer. We have seen the introduction of adhesive postage stamps and the telephone service, first of all over wire and now, to some extent, over the radio. I hope that during his subsequent years of administration my right hon. Friend will be able to get rid of some of the wires which festoon the countryside. I must not, however, stray from the subject.
During my time as a Member of the House of Commons, we have seen the introduction of S.T.D., when Her Majesty the Queen made the first telephone call by this method to my constituency in Bristol. At that time, my right hon. Friend's predecessor was Postmaster-General. The hon. Member for Barnsley and other people at various times have spoken on the contribution by the Post Office to the space age.
Some of the services are healthy, paying services, much used by the public, expanding and profitable. As a result, Post Office finances in those spheres are reasonably healthy. There are, however, some aspects of the services which do not pay. Some do not pay because they could hardly be commercially viable, and others do not pay because it is a conscious act of policy to protect the public from the increasing costs which we all face.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's efforts to keep the postage rate at a steady price. He has done much in this direction. For this purpose, he has introduced a number of commercial methods. We can hardly have escaped the attractive coloured posters which are to be

seen on nearly all Post Office, or certainly on Her Majesty's Stationery Office vans, saying:
Some one somewhere wants a letter from you".

Mr. William Ross: Why does not the hon. Member go and write one?

Mr. Cooke: It may be suggested that the new advertisements are cheap and nasty, but, on the other hand, if we can get a postal service which is efficient, and by and large it is highly efficient—incidentally, to digress for a moment, we hear only about the inefficiencies. It is rather like when the House of Lords gets into trouble. That is all we hear about. We do not hear about the good work that it does. We hear about Members of Parliament only when they do something silly. When they do something constructive, we are not told about it; it is not news.
Nobody wants increased postal charges. My right hon. Friend is right to pursue every possible course to try to make the Post Office more profitable and to keep the letter post at the present rate. The service is under-used in some parts. My right hon. Friend has introduced this new delivery in order to take up the slack. But it is not a new idea. One or two other countries have tried it already. I believe that it was even tried here some years ago in a limited form. Of course, it is quite possible to have the same sort of service covering every household by sending out stereotyped postcards. Postcards can be of enormous size and can carry something much more illuminating and inflammatory than some of the leaflets now criticised. The fact is that the new service is a valiant attempt by my right hon. Friend to try to make a little more money for the public service.
Why should not the Post Office cash in? Why should it be left to a lot of private individuals to detract from the Post Office, to take away its opportunity and profit? Surely we are here to protect the public and this great national service. Shall it compete like the railways—

Mr. Mason: We soon will not have any.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman says that soon we shall not have railways.


But, judging from opposition in this House from both sides to any sort of retraction of railway services, I doubt if Dr. Beeching will be able to carry out more than a little palliative surgery, let alone a large-scale policy of amputation. The railways are anxious to benefit from profitable services and to abandon unprofitable ones. An example is the Railway Museum, which they are trying to unload. However, if I digress, other hon. Members will call me to order even if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, do not.
My right hon. Friend did not introduce the new delivery without proper thought. He consulted the union. My construction is that the union thought it a good idea at first and then found it might have snags. I cannot but believe that there is a certain amount of politics in this. The union does not like delivering a particular leaflet. I will come to that in a moment. I tried to get a copy of this leaflet in the Library, but it did not possess one. I was told that the Library found it difficult to obtain the publications of Aims of Industry Ltd. I hope that Aims of Industry Ltd. will be more forthcoming, since it is difficult otherwise for hon. Members to study these things. Fortunately, I now have one of the leaflets.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Does not my hon. Friend agree that these pamphlets are very harmless? They give quotations from both sides, including long passages from "Signpost for the Sixties", telling us what the Labour Party would do in power.

Mr. Cooke: I thank my hon. Friend for that useful intervention. If I do not deal sufficiently with "Signpost for the Sixties" perhaps he will intervene again. I wanted to point out that the new delivery is introduced by a much more attractive pamphlet. It is not right to say that my right hon. Friend took no thought before introducing it.

Mr. Spriggs: Why did the right hon. Gentleman suspend the delivery then?

Mr. Cooke: If the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) had been present at the beginning of my speech—which was, I agree, some time ago—he would know that my right hon. Friend suspended the delivery out of courtesy to this

House—that puts the best construction on it—or, if one wants to be more partisan, because the Leader of the Opposition did not like what the pamphlet said. Hon. Members opposite must decide as they please. The fact remains that my right hon. Friend has produced a most attractive booklet. It is in colour, and copies may be obtained from the Library.
It is a first-class presentation of a public service in the very best commercial way. We receive great numbers of documents through the post. Some are of low taste and others are ill constructed. This, however, is a most handsome document and any businessman would be bound to be attracted by it. I have seen favourable comments on the leaflet in journals published by chambers of commerce. I have no intention, however, of reading great expanses of the document to the House.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Before my hon. Friend completes his preliminary remarks, can he say who designs the various contributions?

Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend has me there. I can see no signature to the illustrations in this document. The pamphlet seems to be anonymously produced, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to say something about that. I can, however, tell my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) who did the drawings in a most attractive Aims of Industry production which has not yet reached the general public. Incidentally, I have no connection with any of these bodies but another hon. Member showed me a new booklet only this morning.
To return to the Post Office booklet. One finds one's way about it with great ease. The pages are well numbered and each section is designed to arrest the eye and tell how the service operates. This is a popular version of the rather turgid document I quoted at an earlier stage. I see that the hon. Member for St. Helens still seems unable to sit firmly in his place. I think he will find that, if the answers to various questions are not in the coloured document, they are in the less colourful one. However, I will not prolong the discussion on this beautifully produced affair because other hon. Members may wish to refer to it.
Now I come to the controversial leaflet, or leaflets, because it seems that some hon. Members have been more successful than I in getting copies. I did have the other leaflet, but when this matter came up at Question Time the other day my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) stretched out his hand to me and said, "What is that you are reading?" He took it away and I have not had it back.
The Aims of Industry leaflet is quite harmless in many ways. It is certainly neither obscene nor offensive. It really contains only one thing that could have caused difficulty to hon. Members opposite. It quotes some of the more unfortunate sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition. It also makes merry with the "thumbs up" sign we have seen presented on so many of their documents. It gives the "thumbs down" sign to nationalisation. That is all it does. The other document concerned in this quarrel is very much the same. A somewhat faceless gentleman is to be seen with his pockets full of factories and workshops.
In other words, this is the straightforward anti-nationalisation case which we have heard so many times before. Hon. Members opposite nod their heads. We have seen it all before. Then why do they find it so offensive when the case is restated? The only reason why it is being restated is that the party opposite sticks to the out-of-date doctrine which we have election after election.
I shall not continue on that political line, except to say that I find it difficult to see why the Post Office workers should object to this leaflet.

Mr. Archie Manuel: You keep off the workers' grievances.

Mr. Cooke: If the hon. Member had been here earlier he would have heard me pay tribute to the splendid service that these people are giving. I go along with the hon. Member for Barnsley in his sentiments about the Post Office, but I clash with him when he denounces this service. I say that it would be a good thing, because with the extra profit we could pay the Post Office workers more. They are to get more anyway, but they might then be able

to get even more. Not to go over the earlier part of my remarks—

Mr. Norman Dodds: Oh, for heaven's sake.

Mr. Cooke: If hon. Members persist in intervening and charging me with things that I did not say I must answer the charges, even if those hon. Members were not here at the beginning of my remarks.

Mr. Manuel: I was merely indicating that the hon. Member should keep off the subject of the workers' grievances. Others here are more competent to do that than he is. They can speak more adequately for Post Office workers than he can. We do not need to have him butting in and saying things that he knows nothing about.

Mr. Cooke: It is wrong to charge hon. Members on this side of the House with being outsiders. We are as entitled as hon. Members opposite to take an interest in Post Office workers. Hon. Members opposite have no monopoly in that.
I now come to the next part of my speech, which will deal with some of the arguments that have been put forward to the effect that the proposed introduction of this service has met with considerable public opposition. I have received one letter on the subject, against the service. I would not wish to hide anything or to try to prejudice the case, but this is a very small postbag compared with that which I received on the subject of trading stamps, or on what the Minister of Education said or did not say about sex, or on pay for teachers, or on nuclear disarmament, on which subject I receive a steady flow of letters, most of them from people who are not in my constituency.
But this subject attracted very little interest among my constituents. I believe that other hon. Members have had the same experience, unless they have some special interest in the Post Office. The correspondence that I have had in connection with this matter in no way approaches that which I once had after a wet Sunday afternoon when the stag hunting issue was current. I will now turn to the objection made by my constituent on this service in order to try to allay some of the suspicions and


the fears that great difficulties will arise over it. My constituent says:
The service could give offence or discomfort to sections of the community by the indiscriminate distribution of circulars of a religious, moral or ethical nature contrary to the beliefs or principles held by individual members or sections of the public.
I will not go into details, but my constituent makes the point that certain religious or moral dangers might ensue from the distribution of these pamphlets.
Surely they can be distributed by the ordinary processes of the mail. They can be distributed on postcards which are open for all to see—and everybody reads everybody else's postcards. They are more likely to pick up other people's postcards—

Mr. Manuel: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Cooke: It is something of a tradition. One first looks at the picture on one side and then at the other side to see who has sent the postcard. It is a tradition.

Mr. James Griffiths: On a point of order. Is there still such a rule as the rule of tedious repetition, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): There is such a rule. I do not think that we have quite reached that stage yet.

Mr. Griffiths: Have we any hope of soon reaching it. Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Cooke: I am sorry if I have appeared to be tedious to some hon. Members opposite. It must be fair to point out that many of them were not here at the beginning of my remarks, so it is a little difficult to see how they can claim that I have been guilty of tedious repetition. Tedium it may be, but not repetition—because they do not know what I said earlier on.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Would my hon. Friend also take note of the fact that hon. Members opposite have been so interested and fascinated by his remarks that not one has left the Chamber?

Mr. Cooke: If I were to try to answer all the various charming suggestions which have been made by hon. Members during the course of my remarks I might remain on my feet longer than the House would wish.
I do not wish to go over the arguments that were raised in the debate on 4th February, except to say that any hon. Member on either side of the House who read through the report of that debate might be charmed by the wholehearted plunging in of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) but would surely have been impressed by the incisive wit of the First Secretary to the Treasury, who wound up the debate. I do not wish to prolong my remarks by going over the arguments raised in those two speeches, but in my view my right hon. Friend flattened the right hon. Member for Belper. Let any hon. Member challenge that if he dare.
During the earlier part of my speech I said that there was a final consolation for hon. Members who objected to this scheme, namely, that we are not to be treated merely to miserable black and white leaflets from the organisation that was so much in question. Today one of my hon. Friends had sent to him another of its publications, and I have seen it. It is a charming yellow and black booklet, called The Trojan Horse. That is a new approach to this problem of back-door nationalisation. It seems to be a very suitable illustration.

Mr. Ross: What regulation are we talking about?

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Member asks what this has to do with the regulations.

Mr. Ross: What is the regulation that we are now discussing? What is its number?

Mr. Cooke: For the benefit of the hon. Member it is 1963 No. 2137, Post Office; The Inland Post Regulations, 1963; Made on 30th December, 1963; Laid before Parliament on 6th January, 1964, and Coming into Operation on 20th January, 1964. There follow 48 pages which I do not propose to read to the House.

Mr. Ross: But which regulation is it?

Mr. Cooke: I understand that all the regulations are under discussion and that if hon. Members opposite had their way and managed to carry the vote against these regulations this evening we would be as we were without these


regulations, except that we would not have the new service proposed by my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.]
I am not here to answer an interrogation from a sedentary hon. Member opposite. If I endeavoured to answer all the questions I should be here until the end of the debate, and that would be unkind to other hon. Members. To come to the end of my remarks—

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: Before that unhappy state of affairs arrives, would my hon. Friend give us the benefit of his thoughts on the point which flowed from the remarks of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) earlier in the debate, when he referred to that very noble band of people who are employed in putting literature through letter boxes? The hon. Member was referring to postmen, and he said that if they were to carry out this service they would be degraded to the level of those deliverers. In my opinion, those people are most assiduous working people, earning an honest living, and they should not be referred to in such a way.

Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Gentleman rose to put a question. Surely he is not entitled to make a speech. I ask for your Ruling.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was about to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is an abuse of the rules of the House to endeavour to make a speech within a speech.

Mr. Cooke: I am sorry, but I did not catch the end of my hon. Friend's question. I am not sure what it was that he was putting through the letter box.

Mr. Lagden: May I put the end of my question which was not heard, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Would not my hon. Friend also agree that to refer to people who are earning an honest living as "dishonest"—as has been done this evening—is detrimental to decency and to the type of speeches made in this House?

Mr. Cooke: I would not wish to pursue my hon. Friend in his difficulty in

putting whatever it was through the letter box—I still do not know what it was.
To come back to "The Trojan Horse" booklet, which I mentioned, and which I have not any intention of showing to the House or quoting from—hon. Members show considerable dismay when I referred to it—if it is a booklet, I should think that it would be caught by the regulations and it would not be possible to put copies of it through the letter box unaddressed. So hon. Members opposite will at least have the consolation of knowing that some of the things to which they would, no doubt, object will not be put about by this service.
I wish to end with the thought that there has been a lot of silly fuss about this really rather small, trifling matter. But Parliament often takes a long time to deal with trifling matters. This is an example of the way in which in this House we always do our best to do justice to the smallest problem, even though on some occasions we are accused of tedium by so doing. But it has some merit in that it fills an idle hour—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and it may be that from this discussion, this prolonged discussion, which we are having some new thoughts may materialise which my right hon. Friend may find useful when putting this service into full operation. So who knows what profit may result. Surely hon. Members on both sides of the House must be anxious to have an up-to-date, efficient and profitable postal service.
It is no bad thing that the Post Office should enter into the competitive world, just as other businesses should do. Why should the Post Office be hamstrung by prejudice? Let it compete on equal terms with private enter-price and become more efficient. We might even see—though my right hon. Friend may have doubts about this—a reduction in the charges made for some of the services. No doubt my right hon. Friend is striving in this direction. But he will not have a chance to reduce charges unless we can obtain more revenue for the Post Office, and this is one way to get it. I do not think that any hon. Member would quibble about the need for more revenue.
We are a long way from the penny postage. There must be few hon. Members alive in this House who can remember the penny postage—

Mr. Ross: Or who can remember the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Cooke: —but we must try to avoid a delivery charge of something like 6d. for letter post. Through all the years in which he has been Postmaster-General, my right hon. Friend, has been struggling to keep down the charges, and so far he has succeeded. Do not let us do anything this evening to stop that effort. Do not let us take away the new regulations which he so badly needs in order to improve his service. The only possible result of killing this by a vote would be to impair the Post Office services and lose one chance to get more revenue from an increased and improved service. So I wish success to the Household Delivery Service which I wholeheartedly support.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morris: I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, West, (Mr. Robert Cooke). He said that on the last occasion when the House had an opportunity to debate this issue the time available was somewhat short. Having listened to his very long speech, I can well appreciate his regret, if we had contributions as long as his, a week would not be an adequate length of time in which to hear all the contributions that hon. Members would wish to make.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the circulars distributed by Aims of Industry and other anti-nationalisation institutions. He said he wanted to pay tribute to the efficiency of the Post Office and the work done by post office workers. I welcome that tribute. From someone who is a self-expressed opponent of nationalisation, such a generous tribute to the first nationalised institution in this country is indeed welcome.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Mr. Robert Cooke rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will not the hon. Member concede that this nationalised concern, as he called it, was invented

long before the Socialist Party or Socialism was ever dreamed of?

Mr. Morris: I think that that intervention was somewhat unfortunate and completely irrelevant.
I am identifying myself with this Prayer because of some of the new factors which have emerged since the Household Delivery Service outlined in paragraph 25 on page 19 of the Regulations was introduced. The hon. Member for Bristol, West referred to the limitations of the delivery aspects of the service. I think that they have reached a stage where the situation is slightly ludicrous.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that deliveries will not be made on Saturdays, Sundays, Bank Holidays, or during the Christmas holiday period. This week the Post Office has announced that there will not be deliveries cm the night mail delivery—that is the first delivery of the day—on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays or Fridays. There are a host of restrictions on the service. The question which occurs to me is: with all these restrictions, is the service justified? Is this House is the Postmaster-General, justified in provoking the hostility of the nation's postmen by providing such a restricted service?
When I refer to the nation's postmen I am not referring to industrial anarchists. They are a reasonable and responsible section of the industrial community. Were they industrial anarchists, if they opposed services provided by the Post Office just for the sake of opposing them, why did they not oppose the Recorded Delivery Service? They gave wholehearted cooperation to the Post Office in the introduction of hat service regardless of the fact that it has had a tremendous impact on staffing of high-grade postmen. Postmen are a responsible, co-operative section of the people who have a pride in their job and the service which they provide; they are being treated in a most irresponsible fashion by the Postmaster-General.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West touched on the very important topic of remuneration of Post Office minor manipulative grades. I do not think that his right hon. Friend will welcome the com


ments he made. I share his hope that postal workers will get justice in the current wage negotiations, but I want the Postmaster-General to make it clear, when he winds up the debate, whether he accepts the point made by the hon. Member that profitability ought to be taken into account in determining wage levels within the Post Office. If the Postmaster-General accepts that contention, I hope that he will be far more forthcoming with regard to wages than he has been so far in the negotiations he has begun with the Union of Post Office Workers.
A great deal has been said about the political involvement of postmen in the Household Delivery Service. This is an important aspect of the scheme. Post Office rules lay down that a postman, while in uniform, should not become involved in political activity. He should not canvass for any political party; he should not identify himself with any political party during the hours of his duty while wearing the uniform of his employment. Are those rules to be changed now that we are to have the Household Delivery Service which will create political involvement outside the period of General Elections or by elections?
Some time ago the Post Office introduced Premium Savings Bonds. One of the interesting facts which emerged during the negotiations about the introduction of that scheme was that Post Office clerks who had a legitimate, conscientious objection to becoming involved in what they thought to be gambling were allowed to make known their conscientious objection to their head postmasters or postmasters. Is the Postmaster-General to make available to Post Office staff an opportunity to make a similar conscientious objection to becoming involved in politics?
There is the question of compulsory overtime. I have indicated the limitations that have been put on the delivery aspects of this service. It becomes perfectly clear that if the Postmaster General does not accept that this is a burden additional to the normal exigencies of the service, at least officials at Post Office headquarters accept this argument. They accept that the House-hold Delivery Service will be an added

burden for postmen. They have accepted that it cannot be done on the night mail delivery because that delivery is already over-full in a great many areas. They were, therefore, obliged to consider when it could be delivered. It is now proposed that it will go on the second or third delivery within the London area.
Will the Postmaster-General tell us whether overtime for postmen involved in special household deliveries, or deliveries expanded because of the inclusion of household delivery items which will be incurred on that basis, will be compulsory? If so, and if the Department says that the household delivery items are a burden above the normal, will he consider making an overtime rate for postmen involved in this duty above the normal overtime rates?
I want to deal with the effects on the fully-paid correspondence which the introduction of this scheme will have. This is the nub of the argument for people outside this House and outside the Post Office. Everyone within the Post Office and those with its interests at heart takes pride in the fact that we have one of the most efficient postal administrations in the world, but that is not shared by hon. Members in regard to delivery arrangements for first delivery fully-paid correspondence.
I did a little research and looked up Questions which had appeared on the Order Paper during the past 12 months. During that time 31 Questions have directed the attention of the Postmaster-General to the inadequacies or failure in regard to treatment of fully-paid correspondence by his Department. That opinion exists in this House and obviously reflects views of constituents in every part of the country. In that situation, are we to insist that this service which will be an added burden should be accepted without any quibble?
The hon. Member for Bristol, West talked about advertising. He said that the Post Office was at present engaged in an advertising campaign, "Someone somewhere wants a letter from you". I hope that no one wants it delivered by the Household Delivery Service. The Postmaster-General is wasting money in this direction; and I say that deliberately. One estimate of the cost in which


he is involving the Department at present is £150,000 for outdoor advertising and television advertising of the postal service. He should ask himself and his officials how much traffic all the advertising has attracted since the inception of his policy of commercial advertising.
I hope that the Postmaster-General will not persist in his obdurate attitude towards the very reasonable and responsible opinions which have been expressed to him by the leaders of the Union of Post Office Workers.

8.30 p.m.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. C. Morris) too closely, except to say that I share with him, as with all hon. Members, a great admiration for the work done by the employees of the Post Office. But it was a little ungenerous of him to suggest that because hon. Members, in carrying out their constituency responsibilities, drew attention to shortcomings here and there in the mail delivery in their own area they were doing a disservice to the Post Office, or reflecting adversely on the merit of Post Office employees. I am sure that there are many hon. Members opposite, as on this side of the House, who from time to time have had to complain about an inadequate telephone service as about an inadequate mail service. I do not think that that is relevant to the matter which we are discussing.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for the fact that I was not here when the debate started. I was unaware that it was to begin so early. In fact, I was attending to the very large volume of mail, some complimentary and some uncomplimentary, which I have received in the last few days.

Mr. Mason: Was it stamped?

Sir S. McAdden: It was all stamped, but not all sealed. I am sure that postmen who are responsible for the delivery of mail to the House do not worry particularly whether what is contained inside an envelope is complimentary or otherwise to the hon. Member who receives it. Perhaps some of the senders of some of this unpaid correspondence—unpaid in the sense that it does not carry full postage and is sent in unsealed

envelopes—would be interested to see what happens to some of this mail when it is opened. But there is a distinction between mail sent in an envelope and the subjects contained in Rule 25 of the document which we have been discussing.

Mr. Mason: The Regulations.

Sir S. McAdden: If my terminology is not as correct as it should be, I will point out that I was never a school-teacher.

Mr. Manuel: A maiden speech?

Sir S. McAdden: It may be a maiden speech to the hon. Member, who may not be here very often.

Mr. Manuel: I am here day in and and day out. It is a long time since the hon. Member made a speech in the House.

Sir S. McAdden: It is obvious that the hon. Member has not been diligent in his duties during the last 10 days, otherwise he would know that I made two speeches, both short, in the House last week. I am sorry that he was not in his place. Had he been in his place, he would not have made that rather impertinent interjection.
I am anxious to discuss the matter raised by the bon. Member for Barnsley It is ironic that criticism is being directed to the distribution of leaflets through this new service by an organisation which is interested in putting the case against nationalisation—and the method which it is seeking to use to put the case against nationalisation is the nationalised Post Office. Surely it is a wonderful argument for hon. Members opposite to say, "What is the use of these people saying that nationalisation is no good when they are paying tribute to the efficiency of nationalisation by using a nationalised service?" Surely that is a worth-while point.
On the other hand, that would start with an assumption that Aims of Industry, members of the Conservative Party and others who criticise nationalisation are necessarily opposed to all forms of nationalisation. Of course we are not. The Conservative Party has not opposed running the Post Office as a nationalised institution, nor do we


pretend that its success has been achieved solely as a result of nationalisation.
It is only in recent years that the difficult job of transporting letters from Land's End to John O'Groats has been undertaken by another nationalised industry; until then it was done by private enterprise. It is only in comparatively recent years that the mail vans have been run directly by the Post Office. They used to be run by contractors to the Post Office whose name, I think, was McNamara. The difficult job of getting letters across long distances overseas is done even today by ship.
Let us not pretend that we must be doctrinaire about nationalisation on this issue. Where nationalisation can he justified as essential in the national interest, and where there is a case to show that it is being done efficiently, by all means let us pay tribute to the work which it does and let us seek to extend its efficiency by constantly seeking to attract new ideas into the service.
But it surely is not fair to lay the blame upon the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General by suggesting that he dreamed up this idea himself. I have a great respect for him. I have know him for many years, but I know that this was not an idea which he thought up one night when he was able to slip home to Liverpool to get a few hours sleep. This has been talked about in Post Office circles for many years, not only in this country but overseas. The executive of the union was rather in favour of this idea and recommended it to the conference. It is true that the conference rejected it. Conferences do not always agree with their leaders. Hon. Members opposite know that very well, as do members of the Conservative Party. We all know that at a conference the rank and file often take a different view from that of the leaders.
But that does not mean that the leaders are wrong. I think that the executive of the union, with its variety of experience and intimate knowledge, came to a very sensible decision in recommending this proposal to its members, and it is a pity that its members threw it out at the conference. But that does not stop it from being a good idea. The Postmaster-General and his

associates in the Ministry and in the Post Office came to the conclusion that it was a good idea which ought to be further developed and exploited, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has gone on with it undeterred by the fact that, in the main, the criticism seems to be about the nature of the leaflets which may be put into people's homes.
I am glad that the representatives of the Post Office who have come to see me have not advanced the idea that there is some right for them to act as political censors. Hon. Members opposite complain about the leaflets being issued by Aims of Industry attacking the case which they seek to put. I find them very sensitive on these issues. They never seem to hesitate to attribute all sorts of unworthy motives to hon. Members on this side of the House. They seem to find no difficulty, as I have experienced many times, in describing people as Fascist hyenas, jackals and wicked upholders of the capitalist system. But if anybody attempts to hit back and to say, "It may be that there is something good in the idea which you are attacking", they become very sensitive and nervous about it.
This shows an unhealthy over-sensitivity. I hope that hon. Members opposite will in future recognise that the objection of postmen themselves is that this service is degrading their status. I cannot for the life of me understand how it should degrade one's status to put an item of correspondence through the letterbox of every house in a road rather than through the letterbox of every other house or every fourth house. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will listen, I shall be able to come to the end of my argument without any repetition.
I have not indulged in any repetition yet, and I do not propose to do so. Neither do I propose to make a filibuster. I propose to deal with the points I wish to make and I hope that hon. Members will listen to them. The more closely they listen, the more rapidly I shall get to the conclusion. I have never inflicted upon the House a speech of more than about 20 minutes. I have always felt that other Members would do excellently if they copied my concise example, instead of wandering all over the shop.
I cannot see that there is any justification for talking about the degradation of status merely because a person delivers something through the letterbox of every house in a road rather than to those few houses which happen to have some addressed mail to be delivered to them. This does not seem to me to be a degradation of status. If there is to be solidarity amongst workers, it is a bit thick when one can say that those who are employed in a private capacity to deliver circulars are degraded individuals. I hope that hon. Members opposite will think about this at the General Election, the date of which is not within my knowledge, when they send their various supporters round stuffing leaflets through doors. I hope that they do not hold a conference before they send their supporters out and tell them, "Go out and degrade yourselves by pushing these leaflets through doors". I hope that they will consider that these people will be serving a worthy and useful purpose.
I do not think that Post Office employees need he unduly worried, provided that this service does not clog up the delivery of normal mail, provided that it allows the more useful employment of the Post Office's labour force, and provided that it allows the Post Office to provide a service which is presumably wanted by the people. Let it not be assumed that Aims of Industry is the only body which will use this service. For all I know, the Co-op may go in for it, or Transport House. A large number of people may wish to make use of this service.
But it is not for free. They must pay for it. They will pay for it only if they think that it is worth while. I am sure that the Postmaster-General would never have introduced Regulation 25 unless he had already made inquiries to find what sort of reaction he was likely to get from people who are interested in having unaddressed circulars delivered to houses.

Mr. Ross: The other way round.

Sir S. McAdden: The hon. Gentleman, who makes so many interruptions from a sitting position, ought to know better, having been a school teacher. He should know his manners by now. He should know, first, that he should not talk when I am talking. He should

know, secondly, that he should wait until I give way to him, and then stand up and say what he wants to say.
If it be true, as has been alleged by hon. Members opposite, that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General did not make inquiries, what can one say about the executive of the Union, which recommended this to the conference? Is it contended that the executive never made any inquiries in this country or from its international colleagues in the Post Office service overseas to find out whether such a service was worth while?
I am satisfied that this matter has been investigated and studied by the Postmaster-General, that the probable revenue resulting from it has been accurately assessed by him, and that the service will be of benefit to the Post Office. I co not want this business to be cluttered up with the idea that there should be same kind of political censorship of the mail merely because a postman, because of his political views, may not like what he is asked to deliver. Many of us have to receive by stamped mail which comes to our homes literature which we find personally offensive. Many times I have heard complaints in the House about advertisements for gambling being delivered to homes. Many people of the Catholic, faith take strong exception to birth control literature being circulated to them in stamped mail.
If this s already being done by stamped mail, I would not wish literature which offended against people's sense of morality to be inflicted upon them. I am sure that the Regulations which the Postmaster-General has made, properly interpreted, as I am sure that they will be, by him and by those who work under him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] Because I have confidence in the Post Office and I have confidence in the Postmaster-General.
To be honest, I also have confidence in the "shadow" Postmaster-General, as being a sensible chap. That is why I know that: tonight he has really been speaking with his tongue in his cheek. He knows full well that this is an excellent service and as a man of intelligence he knows that were he in the Postmaster-


General's position he would have introduced it long ago. He should rejoice in the knowledge that my right hon. Friend has now, after due consideration and in full knowledge of the consequences, introduced these Regulations. They will, I am sure, prove of enormous benefit to the people.
I hope, therefore, that the proposal that the Regulations should be annulled will be treated with the contempt it deserves and that it will be known to be what it is—just a party political exercise which has nothing whatever to do with the Post Office.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. C. Morris) in his place, because I intend to comment on his speech. I do so with some feelings of almost affection, because I was responsible for beating him at the last General Election. I have had discussions with him in the past about the Post Office, in which we have a mutual interest.
I cannot understand why a representative of the Post Office like himself can begin to complain about my right hon. Friend showing a bit of enterprise. The hon. Member said, in effect, that it was a disgraceful thing that my right hon. Friend should be spending money on advertising. I want to see the Post Office much more aggressive in its selling activities. I wish we could have a big advertising campaign for telephones. We cannot because we do not have enough telephones to advertise. I want to see a sort of buccaneering spirit in the Post Office, and I regret that the hon. Member, who is a representative of the Post Office, wants to see it sitting down doing nothing and not trying to bring more business to its activities. This is not the way to promote a healthy organisation, and I am convinced that his advice is very bad for the Post Office.
The hon. Member for Openshaw also said that there was no merit in this form of activity. We are all inclined to say that there is no merit in the things we do not like and immense merit in the things we like. I am not on his issue concerned about whether

or not this mail is worth while delivering, because I am not paying for it. If I am paying for it, I then have an intense interest in it and I must weigh up whether or not it is worth while. People who are interested in this sort of delivery must consider the merits or demerits of their activities, for they are paying for it, and if it is good and if they find it good for them they will go on using it. If as a result of their experience they find that the service is not of any commercial value, my right hon. Friend will not get much revenue from it.

Mr. C. Morris: I accept some of the hon. Member's points, but will he accept that it is a complete provocation to accept this type of correspondence against the expressed hostility of the people who will be obliged to carry it?

Mr. Shepherd: I will come to that, because it is a matter of regret to me that the circumstances which surround this issue have been so full of dissension. Hon. Members opposite have imported into it a political content which should not be imported.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: Has my hon. Friend received one letter from any of his constituents? I ask this because, despite the great post office in Hereford, I have not had one letter on this problem. I cannot understand, therefore, why hon. Members opposite insist on taking up the attitude they have adopted.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not know about the great post office in Hereford, or whether it is any greater than the post office in Cheadle. I have had one letter from someone who said, "We don't want these damned circulars." That person was expressing a point of view to which he is entitled, but this must be judged on the commercial merits of the service. If it has commercial merit, it will be of value. If it has not, it will not be of value. It may well be that the circulars will be of considerable value to people. It may be that one circular out of twenty may be immensely interesting to the recipient. If that is so, the service will proceed.
The hon. Member for Openshaw was very unfair and unreasonable in pointing to certain criticisms made in


Questions in the House about the postal service. It was an appalling statement for an hon. Member associated with the. Union of Post Office Workers. On both sides of the House there is a very profound feeling of gratitude to and appreciation of the postman. He is on the whole the friend of those whom he serves, and I think that a great part of the prestige of the British postal service arises entirely from the quality of the postman and his attitude towards his job. He still speaks of "going on duty," and to a postman it is a duty. Although after the war some rum ones were drafted into the service in various ways, this situation has now considerably improved and the postman is back on his old standard as a public servant who is immensely admired and who justifies that admiration. The hon. Member is wrong in assuming that because we criticise the proposal we are in any way critical of the postman or that because sometimes hon. Members have to draw attention to deficiencies, they are critical of the postman's work.
I want now to say a word about the unfortunate circumstances in which this situation has arisen. The most unfortunate situation has been created by—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) for being instrumental in giving me a little rest in the middle of my speech and for having brought an added number of hon. Members to listen to my words of wisdom.
I was saying that a good deal of the criticism about this unfortunate state of affairs can fairly be directed at the Union of Post Office Workers. It is, to say the least of it, extremely unfortunate that its executive did not take more steps to determine the attitude of its members to this service. My right hon. Friend was perfectly justified in taking the view that the service was approved of by the executive and had at least a reasonable chance of being approved of by the average postal worker. A good deal

of the criticism in this connection can be directed at the Union of Post Office Workers—

Mr. C. Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the fact that the executive council of the Union of Post Office Workers lid everything that any reasonable person could expect it to do? It took the views of the members on the question of the household delivery service. It then convened the annual conference of the Union and accepted the expressed decision and will of those present at it. There is this constant reiteration that it is the Union of Post Office Workers that is responsible for the atmosphere that now exists within the Post Office, but I say that the person responsible is the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member is quite entitled to defend his own union—I would expect him to do that—but I repeat that it would have been at least desirable had the union taken more steps to ascertain its members' views, or, if it failed to do that, had taken the usual steps to manage the conference when it was convened [HON. MEMBERS: "Of."] It should have adopted one or other of those procedures.
It is a little unkind of the hon. Gentleman to blame my right hon. Friend for accepting the word of the executive of the Union of Post Office Workers. In all the circumstances, it does not seem unreasonable that he should have done so—

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman has said that the executive of the Union of Post Office Workers gave its word to the Postmaster-General. I hope he has some proof of that. The Postmaster-General has told the House that the executive stated its view, but for the hon. Gentleman to say that it gave the right hon. Gentleman its word is a vastly different thing.

Mr. Shepherd: I would hope that, in this connection, "view" and "word" meant the same thing. When my right hon. Friend talks to the union he must sound its executive's views. He is entitled to say that those on the executive are responsible people who, when they give a view, give one consistent with what they truly think and feel. I do not think shat my right hon. Friend


was unreasonable in taking the view he did—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member must be aware that when the decision was taken by the Postmaster-General he knew the view of the whole union.

Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend was quite right to go ahead with this proposal, and I will tell the House why. I do not particularly like the idea of postmen delivering unaddressed packages. I wish it were possible to avoid their having to do it, but the House will appreciate that the Post Office is one of those activities in which the great cost is wages. The House must face that. Every year the postman comes along and wants more wages. I do not complain about that, but the fact remains that the postman wants more wages. Clearly, there is a limit to the extent to which increased efficiency in the Post Office can take account of and overcome the increased cost of wages. Therefore, if we are not to have a further rise in the cost of the postal services, we must have either greater efficiency each year or find some other source of revenue.
I do not like this source of revenue. In a sense, it is not the sort of thing the postman necessarily wants to do. It is not the thing I should like to see him doing if we could run the Post Office and give these increased wages every year without it, but where we have a service in which a huge part of the cost is in wages, and those wages are increasing every year, my right hon. Friend has either to find increased efficiency in the service, or new services to work, or he must increase the cost of the postal services.
I am bitterly opposed to any further increase in the cost of the postal services. I want to see that kept at its present level, but my right hon. Friend must get greater efficiency from the Post Office—

Mr. Ross: This is one of the important matters. With whom must the Postmaster-General co-operate to achieve that efficiency? Surely, it is with the workers. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have been concerned with this problem for a long time, because for about 16 years I have been a member of the Post Office Advisory

Council. I realise that the co-operation of the workers is absolutely essential to the solution of the Department's problem, and the fact of this service being introduced against the wishes of the workers will itself tend to worsen the situation when it comes to consideration of all these things.

Mr. Shepherd: This may be introduced against the wish of some of the workers, but not of all the workers. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is only with the co-operation of the postal workers that we shall get the increased efficiency that will make it possible to keep the cost of the postal services at least at their present level. I should not like to think that the dispute over this service will interfere with the long-term co-operation between my right hon. Friend and the Post Office workers.
This has been an unfortunate matter, made the more unfortunate by the attempt to make political propaganda out of it. But I am convinced that it will not interfere with the postman's sense of duty, which is very strong, and his desire to co-operate with the Post Office in increasing efficiency. I am sure that the average postman knows that it is not a practical proposition to increase postal charges yet further, and that the only way we can get away from this grievous possibility is by increasing efficiency and finding new services.
I hope that this will see the end of this dispute, and that we shall have these circulars delivered to those who want them and those who do not want them, so that we can see at the end of 12 months or two years what is the merit of this proposal. If it has commercial value it will continue and if it has not it will fail. All I ask hon. Members opposite is not to try to make further political propaganda at the expense of good relations between the Post Office workers and the Postmaster-General.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I can appreciate the difficulties with which hon. Members opposite are faced. After listening to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), I have great sympathy with him, because the speech which he has made was certainly


not up to his usual standard. I appreciate that when an hon. Member is doing a filibuster of this kind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite are filibustering, as they know full well. That was the reason I called a Count, to see whether those for whom they were waiting would arrive. I appreciate the difficulties, and I think it essential that one or two hon. Members on this side should help them if they are not capable of conducting a filibuster properly.
The question that we are faced with is whether, in pursuance of this alleged economic stability of the Post Office, we shall not so undermine the relationship between the Postmaster-General and the postmen as to seriously damage the postal services of the country. No matter what the hon. Member for Cheadle thinks, this is what the House has to face.
I think that the Postmaster-General will admit that there has been a serious deterioration of the relationship between the Union of Post Office Workers and the Postmaster-General during recent months. I have experience of both nationalised and private industry and, in my view, no matter what else one does, it is impossible to maintain any degree of efficiency in any industrial or commercial unit unless there is a firm cooperation between management and workers.
The introduction of this unstamped delivery service is unquestionably causing a great deal of concern to postmen. It is no good the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) saying that we have not had letters from constituents. I have.

Mr. Bence: So have I.

Mr. Loughlin: I have also had a special delegation at my home from postmen.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: May I ask whether the hon. Member asked the postmen to see him, or whether they asked him to see them?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Loughlin: It is a fair question. I do not mind it being asked. It is possible for hon. Members to so frame and distort things as to be able to invite people. No doubt this is in the hon.

Member's mind because it is a practice in which he indulges when it suits his purpose. I assure him that the postman who called on me to discuss the subject with me, on behalf of his colleagues at the Coleford and Lydney post offices, was not invited by me to call at my home. He came entirely of his own volition, at the request of his colleagues, to discuss my attitude to this issue.
I have had delegations from my constituency. I have had letters from my constituents. I received a delegation in the Palace of Westminster. They came from the Union of Post Office Workers, and perhaps, it was unfortunate that they did not put in a green card for the hon. Member for Hereford. I can assure the hon. Member that they left me in no doubt about their attitude towards this service.
Has the Postmaster-General gone into this matter in the way he ought to have done? Let us be quite clear that there is a possibility of a breakdown of postal services if this service is introduced against the wishes and in opposition to postmen generally.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I wonder why it was that the hon. Member tried to put an end to the debate 10 minutes ago if it is of such importance?

Mr. Loughlin: The trouble with the hon. Member is that he never gets a new idea. I dealt with that point two or three minutes ago, but if the hon. Member wants me to tell him again I will tell him. I knew that hon. Members opposite were hanging on to the debate until their colleagues had arrived, and all I wanted to do was to find out whether they had arrived.

Mr. Bence: They have not all arrived yet.

Mr. Loughlin: No, and some hon. Members opposite are still willing to do a filibuster. I said that I would help them out.
To return to the point I was making, the Postmaster-General is in danger of undermining the efficiency of the postal services by the introduction of this new service because, if he cannot get the fullest co-operation of the postmen themselves, the normal delivery service may break down.
There are some technical difficulties, about which the right hon. Gentleman


will know more than I do myself, but I wonder what would happen if, as the hon. Member for Cheadle suggests, all the people who want to advertise in one way or another or send samples use this service. Leaving aside for the moment the political organisations, Aims of Industry and the other pseudo-Tory organisations, which are likely to flood the mail in the next few weeks before the General Election, what will happen if there is a big demand for the service? What if it becomes a raging success?
Is the Postmaster-General satisfied that, if it is a successful venture, he either has the staff now necessary to carry the service through or he will be able to engage sufficient of the right calibre of staff to do the job? Presumably, one must take it that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to introduce the service if he did not think that it was going to he successful. If, in the first place, one undermines industrial relations with the existing staff of the Post Office. and, in the second place, one cannot convince the House of Commons that it will be possible to secure sufficient staff for the purpose, there ought to be second thoughts, even at this late stage.
This is the problem which the Postmaster-General faces, and, if he cannot give the House assurances that, if the venture is successful, he can produce an adequacy of the right type of staff, it would be wrong for the House to give its consent to the introduction of the service.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Supposing that the service were a great success, and supposing for a moment that the Opposition came into power, would they withdraw it, and the resulting funds, from the Post Office?

Mr. Loughlin: That is a fair question. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman grins all over his face as he puts it. Perhaps he thinks that he is very clever. As far as I am concerned, it is a fair question, though hypothetical. If the service were a terrific success, and if we were able to overcome the objections which I am at the moment putting to the Postmaster-General, it would be wrong for a Government to discontinue it.
But this is not the point. We would then be acting in accordance with ex-

perience, and anybody undertaking a commercial venture must be able to assess the degree of difficulty likely to be encountered in the introduction of a service. I am posing not what may happen in two years' time, but the problems which may arise from the Postmaster-General's actions.
I hope that the Postmaster-General will answer these two questions. First, is he satisfied that he can pursue a service on the basis of a lack of co-operation on the part of the people who are to operate it? Secondly, is he satisfied that, in the event of the service being successful, he will be able to find adequate staff to maintain it in its entirety?
I now turn to consider the people who are to receive these documents.

Mr. Manuel: That is the most important part.

Mr. Loughlin: It is equally important as the points raised by the hon. Member for Cheadle.
Suppose I do not want these documents and want to discourage people from delivering such matter as this. Right hon. Members opposite have always argued that an Englishman's home is his castle and that there should not be any infringement of the Englishman's privacy. My home begins at my gate, and I have a right to say who shall come in that gate and what shall be brought within it. If I do not want the postman to deliver to me circulars advertising various types of deodorants—which, I may conclude, is a veiled insult to me—and similar types of literature. I should be able to say that I do not want them.

Mr. Frederic Harris: How does the hon. Member stop the Post Office putting through unwanted telephone calls?

Mr. Loughlin: I do not get unwanted telephone calls. I get inconvenient telephone calls. I live in my constituency and my constituents ring me up at hours when I think they should not do so—perhaps at ten minutes to ten on a Saturday evening, and sometimes later, when the problem is an acute one to them.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: My hon. Friend has been asked about unwanted telephone calls. Would not they be paid for at the full price?

Mr. Loughlin: I hope that my hon. Friend will have sufficient confidence in my ability to deal with interventions.
As I say, I have never had an unwanted telephone call in my life. No doubt, like the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), if he lives in his constituency, I have a constant barrage of telephone calls, but I recognise that the difficulty with which my constituent is faced, trivial though it may sometimes appear to me, is most important to him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) has so ably pointed out, the calls are paid for at the full rate.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Member help me out by telling me how he draws the final moral distinction between a circular which is put in a 3d. or a 2½d. envelope and one which has no stamp?

Mr. Loughlin: I do not draw the moral distinction at all. What I know is that the number of circulars that come to me already in this type of post when they have been paid for is too many. I get far too much advertising in my post and I do not see why I should spend my time dealing with it, even if it is merely opening the envelope, reading the contents and throwing them away. I am afraid that I will be deluged by pamphlets of this kind if the service is introduced.
Why is it being introduced? The hon. Member for Cheadle says that I should draw a moral distinction from the type of litera ture which I now get in the 3d. or 2½d. post. I object to that type of literature, but what I object to even more is that the Postmaster-General is making it easier for me to receive a far greater measure of this type of literature than I receive now.
This may be illegal, but if my constituents take my advice they will put the literature into an envelope, seal it, address it to the senders and put it back in post boxes unstamped. That is the way to deal with it. If the Postmaster-General institutes a service that I am not desirous of enduring, which will enable any commercial organisation to

send documents to my home, which consider to be an infringement of my privacy, and into the homes of my constituents, which is an infringement also of their privacy, the only way they can deal with them is to send them back to the people who sent them to them and to let those persons pay the surcharge.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Would it not be easier to cross out "The Occupier" and readdress it to the Postmaster-General? I have already done this. I received two, one for myself and one for my husband, who died in November, so I readdressed them in that way. I do not know whether the Postmaster-General has yet had them. I am advising my constituents. and I am entitled to do so, not to put these things in a 3d. envelope, but simply to cross out "The Occupier" and send them to the Postmaster-General and let him have a go.

Mr. Bevins: Mr. Bevins rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not allow interventions upon interventions.

Mr. Loughlin: The point about my suggestion is that this material will be sent to me, I understand, without an envelope. Instead of being civil servants, men with a degree of dignity, postmen will be degraded into leaflet distributors. These circulars are to be sent to me without envelopes. If I am asked to put them into envelopes and address them to the right hon. Gentleman I might just as well send them back to those who infringed my privacy. Sending them back to the right hon. Gentleman will simply mean their going into the waste paper basket. If I return them to the senders unstamped, they will go through the Post Office services, producing the biggest possible blockage of the works. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not a new suggestion. What I am saying about it now may well give additional publicity to it, but it has been suggested before and, no doubt, will be used extensively.
The right hon. Gentleman is introducing this delivery in face of the fiercest opposition of those who are to operate it. The hon. Member for Cheadle said that the union executive was consulted by the Postmaster-General. But in all


negotiations union officials meet the employers representatives first. They may agree with a proposal in principle, but they still have to take it back to their members.
There is no rigging at a union conference. It is not like the Tory Party conference. One cannot rig a union conference as the hon. Member for Cheadle suggested that the Post Office workers should have rigged their conference. The lads in the trade union movement are as suspicious of union officials as they are of employers when it comes to accepting any proposals.

Mr. Bence: No.

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend says "No", but it is a healthy attitude for trade unionists to take. I think that I can claim, however, that I had no difficulty with my members. I had their confidence. Nevertheless, I hope they were always suspicious when I presented a proposal to them. The national executive of the Union of Post Office Workers was correct in telling the right hon. Gentleman that it agreed with this proposal in principle, but the people who determine the union's policy are the members.
Even at this stage, if the men in the Post Office do not want this Household Delivery Service—and they are not likely to co-operate on it with the right hon. Gentleman—it is incumbent upon him to have the courage to withdraw it.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Those who have listened to the debate tonight wonder why it is taking place at all. Most of the arguments which have been put forward were put forward, at greater or lesser length, in last week's debate. I want to examine the attitude of mind of hon. Members opposite, and to try to understand what has caused them to oppose this scheme. I believe that it is partly sheer Luddism, partly anti-commercial advertising, and partly anti-modernisation.
The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) referred to the Postmaster-General as not having obtained the approval of the Post Office union. That is an important point to make. But it would be a great mistake to follow it up—as he almost suggested—by saying

that the Post Office union, which, I agree, is a very responsible one, should have the right to veto something put forward by the Post Office.
My right hon. Friend was quite right to consult the union on this scheme, over a period of eight months. He would have been the subject of criticism if he had not done so, but we cannot accept an argument that the union should have the right to veto a commercial proposition put forward by the Post Office.
I welcomed the view of the hon. Member that once this matter has been fought out in the House by political action it will be wrong for the union to engage in industrial action, but my hon. Friends and I resented his suggestion that the Tory Party had attempted to introduce this proposal so as to evade the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. In effect, that is what he said, and it is an extremely serious allegation. I attempted to interrupt him at that point in his speech to ask him to substantiate his allegation, but he would not give way.

Mr. Will Howie: Does not the hon. Member agree that if the Government introduce a scheme which gives one party an advantage over the other—which alters the balance between the two parties and allows the friends of one party more easily to put over its propaganda—that is really providing a way round the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, and is a deplorable thing?

Mr. Stratton Mills: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention, but it has not been substantiated that this is what will happen as a result of my right hon. Friend's scheme. There are other leaflets. I have never noticed any lack of resources on the part of some of the large trade unions. They are entitled to put out what documents they wish within the provisions of these Regulations. The hon. Member for Barnsley made this serious allegation, and if it is to be made from the Opposition Front Bench it ought to be substantiated. It was not substantiated this evening.
The other interesting thing about the debate is that to some extent we are reversing the normal political situation. Usually, it is the Labour Party which wishes to extend the work of public


authorities. It says, "Let the air corporations do additional work; do not let private enterprise muscle in."

Mr. E. Fernyhough: ; Does not the hon. Member agree that his party does the opposite all the time, and says that public enterprise should not extend its activities?

Mr. Stratton Mills: That interruption illustrates the danger of giving way. The hon. Member has anticipated the trend of my argument. The party opposite says, "Do not shut down the railway workshops. Let them continue their commercial activities." It is suggested that they should be allowed to manufacture rolling stock, for example. Hon. Members on this side are accused of opposing any such extension. So it may be said that tonight, to some extent, we have changed sides. It is odd that hon. Members opposite should be attacking a proposal to give a public authority an opportunity to compete on fair terms with private enterprise.
Another relevant point which has not been sufficiently ventilated is that in 1938 the postage rate was 1½d. Today, it is 3d. But if the postage rate had kept pace with the cost of living it would now be nearer 6d. That is a tribute to the efficiency of the Post Office and to my right hon. Friend, who has made a considerable effort to keep down postage costs so that our postal rate compares favourably with that of other countries in Western Europe.
It would be harmful to interfere, as hon. Members opposite are attempting to do, with the extension of the commercial activities of the Post Office. It is not only a question, as has been suggested, of the £300,000 profit which would result from this service, and which is most important. There is also the substantial contribution which the turnover of the service will make in meeting the Post Office overheads.

Mr. Manuel: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to build up a case in a sensible way. Would not he agree that we should seriously consider the proposition that circulars which are delivered all over the country are unwanted by householders? Is he aware

that many monopoly firms deliver them by engaging labour on a day rate, and that this is regarded as distasteful work.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated a point which I was proposing to make.
I wish to emphasise the importance of gaining as much revenue as possible for the Post Office in order to keep down the cost of other services. If it were found that this service interfered with the normal postal services—there is, as yet, no evidence of that—but were that the price of having this service, I should be against it. It is up to this House to give the Post Office a chance to see whether it can operate this service and still maintain the efficiency of other Post Office services.
Every day I find something in my letterbox which has been distributed by commercial organisations. I never read any of them. Most of them are commercial—

Mr. Loughlin: How does the hon. Gentleman know that if he does not read them?

Mr. Stratton Mills: It is possible to tell at a glance the difference between an insurance leaflet and a Labour Party pamphlet.
The important point is that I do not know who has delivered this literature. Shall I know, after this service is in operation, whether it has been delivered by the postman or by the employee of a firm unless I actually see it delivered? I suggest that some hon. Members opposite are being a little thin-skinned on this point. It is a fundamental human right to be able to throw away this advertising literature unread. This, I think, is essentially a fundamental human right, but it will be in no way interfered with by the scheme which my right hon. Friend has proposed.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us an assurance this evening that if one puts a notice above one's letterbox saying "No circulars" that will be given attention to by the Post Office. There is a much greater chance of having control and assurance that this would not be disregarded if the service is carried on by the Post Office than it may be if it is carried on by commercial firms, some of whom may


be reputable but some not. It is only fair to give the Post Office a chance to show that it can engage in this scheme and compete effectively with private firms.

9.41 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): We have had a good-humoured and lighthearted debate this evening, and I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for contributions which they have made. I promise the House that nothing I say—and I have not been provoked this evening by hon. Members opposite—will sour the atmosphere of this debate.
Since we had the second round of this controversy in this House last week, talks have taken place between the executive of the Union of Post Office Workers and my officials, talks which have taken place in a very amicable atmosphere. They have covered a wide range of operational factors concerned with this service. My people have made a certain number of operational concessions and will discuss other possibilities with the union in the near future. I say that to the House because it is important in the case of a new service like this, which is bound to have teething troubles during its early stages, that we should be able to show that we are prepared to give-and-take and to behave like reasonable people.
I also want to assure the House that there will be no deterioration whatever in normal postal services, but at the same time this new service, for reasons very eloquently stated by several of my hon. Friends tonight, will go on. I take up a small point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. C. Morris), who took a rather unhappy view of the expenditure of the Post Office on advertising the postal service. I think he felt that expenditure was a waste of money. I have never felt so nor has my Department, nor indeed has the Union of Post Office Workers, who were enthusiastic supporters of this advertising campaign.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) made one of his typically wise and witty speeches. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and my hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who have taken such a close interest in Post Office affairs and spoke so incisively this evening.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is not in his place, because I wanted to congratulate him not only on the lucidity of his speech, but also on, for him, its unusual brevity. I thought he made a very wise remark when he commented on the capacity of people outside this House to comment on the doings of politicians and political parties when things go wrong, because then, of course, they happen to have news value.
One of the curious things in this life is that when Lord Robens is able to make quite a modest profit on the coal industry songs of praise appear in all the newspapers, and when Dr. Beeching reduces a fantastic loss on the railways to a slightly less fantastic one he also has praise heaped on his head, but if I as a political animal were to announce in this House tonight the financial profit which the Post Office will probably make during the current financial year I, being a politician, would get nothing but brickbats from outside this House. This applies to both parties.
On Tuesday of last week the House rejected an Opposition Motion to exclude from the new service political literature and other highly contentious matter. I realise that several of the speeches which were made in that debate expressed objections to the service in general. Even so, I think that it is a reasonable inference that at that time the Opposition as a whole at least acquiesced in the decision to introduce the new service as such, otherwise there is no reason why they should not have elected to pray against these Regulations last week instead of tonight. Of course, had they done so successfully, they would have killed the service and automatically, in the process, would have halted the distribution of unaddressed political leaflets. After all, the greater includes the less even in this place.
Having failed to persuade the House to accept their limited Motion, they have decided this evening that they do not want the service at all. What I do not understand is why it should be supposed


that the House, having refused to swallow the gnat, will find even more digestible the camel which it has been offered tonight.
Even so, I welcome the opportunity which this debate gives me to try to clear up once and for all—and I hope that it is once and for all—any doubt which may remain in hon. Member's minds as to the value of this new service.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to deceive the House. He will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) made it clear in the earlier debate that there is a strong view in favour of opposing the service as a whole, but, anticipating that the House might approve the service, he wanted to mitigate some of the damage which it would do in this respect.

Mr. Bevins: If that were the sincerely held view of the right hon. Member for Belper—and I do not question that it was—then the Motion put down by Her Majesty's Opposition ought to have been framed in much broader terms than it was last Tuesday.
Before I come to the substance of my case I want to refer to one small slip made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West because he appeared to think that if this Prayer were carried, which I believe is most unlikely, the effect would be that the Household Delivery Service itself would go by the board and nothing else in particular would happen.
It is my duty to tell the House that the Prayer itself is not directed solely against this service. It is directed against the whole of the inland postal services of this country. I am legally advised that if the Prayer were successful, then tomorrow there would be no legal basis whatever for carrying on a postal service in this country. I therefore hope that hon. Members opposite will reflect well on what they are doing and will consider that if they force this issue to a Division, they are liable to go down in history not only as the party which wanted to introduce political censorship into the Post Office but, worse still, as the Party which wanted to abolish the Post Office altogether.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House, nor is he a political innocent. In effect, if we succeeded in our vote against the 1963 Post Office Regulations we should revert to the 1962 Regulations, the only difference being that the new service is not embodied in the 1962 Regulations.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman has not taken the best legal advice. I have been to extreme lengths to find out what the exact legal position is, and I assure the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that when I state a legal opinion, although I am not a legal man myself, it is invariably right.
I come to the case which has been deployed from the Opposition benches tonight—here I want to be quite serious, because this is a serious subject—on the question whether the service is necessary at all. The hon. Member for Barnsley said that he was against innovations of this sort that smacked of commercialism. I am surprised that he should take this view. I am surprised for two reasons. First, we all know that the practice for firms and organisations in this country to use outside agencies for postal deliveries has been growing at the expense of the Post Office over the last ten years. Secondly, a proportion of second-class mail is not at present handled in the most efficient way by the Post Office itself.
Let me illustrate this to the House. It often happens that people, firms, organisations, want to communicate with large numbers of people and sometimes, indeed, to communicate with all the people in either a given town or a given part of a town or city. It is surely right that the Post Office should try to meet this need in the most efficient way possible.
I should like the House to think for a moment or two about what has happened in the past and what can happen under the new service. When one of our customers says to us now, "I have 50,000 leaflets or circulars, and I want you to deliver one to each house in a certain locality", what does the Post Office do? In the past we have said, "That is fine, but first you must address the circulars or leaflets to the occupier of each house at which you want one delivered. You must put on a 2½d. stamp or meter-frank the envelope, and then hand the packets


over to the Post Office". The Post Office would then have to go through the chore of sorting them into the order in which they are to be delivered. They would then be taken out by postmen in the ordinary course of their work. Because of the work we have to do in sorting, the probability is that the Post Office would barely cover its costs. It is the fact that at this moment we are losing about £1½ million a year on second class mail. This existing system can be a burden not only to our customers. It can also be a financial burden as a losing service to the Post Office.
What happens, by contrast, under the new service? The leaflets or circulars, or whatever they may happen to be, are handed over in bulk. There is no laborious addressing. There are no envelopes to be paid for. There are no stamps to be stuck on. There is no metering to be done. At the end of the day there is a rebate of up to 50 per cent. in the charge to the Post Office's customers. On our side there is no sorting. Postmen take them out and deliver them just as they would have done had they been addressed. The Post Office into the bargain will make a profit out of this business. Therefore, this new service is advantageous all round—not only to the Post Office, and therefore to the public financially, but also to our customers.
Some hon. Members have queried whether the need for this service really exists. Long before this service was ever introduced—when I say "long before" I mean about four years ago—all sorts of inquiries were made of various organisations. Inquiries were made abroad. There was every indication that this was a service which would be a useful addition to the services which we give to the public.
One or two hon. Gentlemen have repeated the allegation this evening that the delivery of this matter would be somehow or other degrading to the postmen.
I can well understand the view that postmen would not wish to be regarded as distributors of mere throw-away literature, but this is not throw-away literature. This is not a service on the dirt cheap, and the vast majority of

postmen in the service of the G.P.O. are sensible people who, after a little experience of this service, will, I am convinced, come to realise why it in no way detracts from the dignity of their main task of ensuring the correct delivery of the nation's first-class mail.
On the estimates of my advisers, during the first year we will probably deliver about 150 million of these leaflets and circulars. This means about 15 unaddressed leaflets for every 1,000 addressed items.
The hon. Member for Barnsley accused me of having made a hasty decision and of having introduced the service precipitantly. That is a most extraordinary allegation. I have been Postmaster-General for more than four years and one of my first acts after taking office was to set up a study of the possibilities of this service, among others. This study was completed in 1962 and early in 1963 I was ready to go ahead with the service.
Proposals were put to the staff associations, but because the executive of the Union of Post Office Workers wished to consult its membership at its annual conference in May last year I agreed, at the request of the union, to postpone the introduction of the service until that consultation took place. As the House knows, the conference rejected the executive's recommendation that it should co-operate in the setting up of the service and, once again—since I had no wish to be provocative—I decided to delay still further the introduction of the service.
The time came, nine months after that decision, that, in fairness not only to the customers of the Post Office but the public at large—who, after all, will benefit financially from this scheme—I decided that I could not go on deferring for ever. I decided, therefore, to introduce the scheme last month; and this was almost a year after I had formally approached the union. This delay may have cost the Post Office as much as £¼ million.
I am always prepared to discuss this and other matters with any of the Post Office unions, but at the same time—as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North pointed out—it would be wholly wrong if any Minister were prepared to be dictated to by a sectional


interest in a matter of this kind. To be fair to the Union of Post Office Workers, I am sure that any sense of dictation has never been in its mind.
Several hon. Members have referred to the question of profitability. I expect that this will prove to be a good thing for the Post Office. In the first year we reckon that our revenue will be rather less than £1 million and on that we expect to make a profit of about £300,000. That is worth while and I think that I would be failing in my duty if I were to fail to introduce this scheme.
The hon. Member for Barnsley—and, I suppose naturally, other hon. Members opposite—have referred again to the inequity of our accepting political leaflets for distribution by the service. Only last week the House rejected, and rejected decisively, the Opposition objections to this part of the scheme, and I think that I should be guilty of discourtesy to the House if I dealt at any great length with those issues this evening.
I should just like to say one final word. The Post Office as we now know it was established 300 years ago. During the whole of that time it has carried the literature, the arguments and the propaganda of every political party, every sect and every faction in the country, and never until now has there been the smallest suggestion that the Post Office was wrong to do so. It has taken the Labour Party, a party which prides itself on its democratic principles, to be the first to advocate political censorship of the mails, a doctrine which has not found support in a single national newspaper or, indeed, in a single commentary of Socialist opinion in the country, and which will certainly find no support in the House tonight.

Mr. Ross: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, he made rather serious remarks at the start about the effect of having a Division. Will he tell me exactly what Regulation 57 means? It says:
The Regulations mentioned in Schedule 8 are hereby revoked.
If the Prayer were carried, they would not be revoked. It is as simple as that. The right hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House.

Mr. Bevins: I do not want to weary the House, but out of courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, who a moment ago was so courteous to me, perhaps I might tell him—this is not my opinion but an eminent legal opinion—that the Regulations could not be annulled in part. A successful Prayer would kill the whole of the Regulations.

Mr. Ross: Including 57?

Mr. Bevins: According to Section 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, if the House resolves that an Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that an Instrument be annulled, then no further proceedings shall be taken thereunder after the date of the Resolution. The opinion goes on to say that the effect of a Resolution would be that until fresh Regulations were made there would, in effect, be no Regulations relating to the inland postal service, and the most difficult consequence would be that the postal charges made in the meantime would be without legal authority.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 204.

Division No. 22.]
AYES
[10.3 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Callaghan, James
Fitch, Alan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carmichael, Neil
Foley, Maurice


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Collick, Percy
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bacon, Miss Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gourlay, Harry


Barnett, Guy
Crossman, R. H. S.
Grey, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Diamond, John
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Blackburn, F.
Dodds, Norman
Hannan, William


Blyton, William
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hayman, F. H.


Boyden, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Brockway, A. Fenner
Evans, Albert
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fernyhough, E.
Holman, Percy




Houghton, Douglas
Mendelson, J. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Howie, W. (Luton)
Millan, Bruce
Snow, Julian


Hoy, James H.
Milne, Edward
Sorensen, R. W.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Monslow, Walter
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Steele, Thomas


Hunter, A. E.
Morris, John
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold
Stonehouse, John


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stones, William


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oliver, G. H.
Symonds, J. B.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oram, A. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oswald, Thomas
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paget, R. T.
Tomney, Frank


Kenyon, Clifford
Parker, John
Wainwright, Edwin


King, Dr. Horace
Parkin, B. T.
Warbey, William


Lawson, George
Pavitt, Laurence
Weitzman, David


Ledger, Ron
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pentland, Norman
Whitlock, William


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lipton, Marcus
Rankin, John
Willey, Frederick


Loughlin, Charles
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rhodes, H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


McBride, N.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


MacColl, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McInnes, James
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Woof, Robert


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ross, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mahon, Simon
Skeffington, Arthur



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Manuel, Archie
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Mr. Redhead and Mr. McCann.


Mason, Roy
Small, William





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Emery, Peter
Longbottom, Charles


Allason, James
Farr, John
Loveys, Walter H.


Anderson, D. C.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lubbook, Eric


Atkins, Humphrey
Foster, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Balniel, Lord
Gammans, Lady
McLaren, Martin


Barlow, Sir John
Gardner, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Barter, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, w.)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Berkeley, Humphry
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Gough, Frederick
Maddan, Martin


Bidgood, John C.
Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.


Biffen, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maitland, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Green, Alan
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Marlowe, Anthony


Bishop, F. P.
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Marten, Neil


Black, Sir Cyril
Gurden, Harold
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Halt, John (Wycombe)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Brewis, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mawby, Ray


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Stratton


Bryan, Paul
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Miscampbell, Norman


Buck, Antony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bullard, Denys
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hendry, Forbes
Morrison, John


Channon, H. P. C.
Hiley, Joseph
Mott-Radclyfle, Sir Charles


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Neave, Airey


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cleaver, Leonard
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Cooke, Robert
Holland, Philip
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Cooper, A. E.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon, Dame P.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K,
Howard, Hon. C. R. (St. Ives)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cordle, John
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Partridge, E.


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pearson, Frank (Ciltheroe)


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peel, John


Coulson, Michael
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jackson, John
Peyton, John


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
James, David
Pitt, Dame Edith


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pounder, Rafton


Dance, James
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pym, Francis


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Quennell, Miss J, M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lagden, Godfrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Doughty, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Duncan, Sir James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carehaton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut' nC' dfield)
Ridsdale, Julian




Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wade, Donald


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wall, Patrick


Roots, William
Tapsell, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Russell, Ronald
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, S.)
Webster, David


Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Teeling, Sir William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, William


Sharples, Richard
Thompson, Sir, Richard (Croydon S.)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Shaw, M.
Thornton-Kentsley, Sir Colin
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Shepherd, William
Thorpe, Jeremy
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wise, A. R.


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Speir, Rupert
Turner, Colin
Woodnutt, Mark


Stainton, Keith
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woollam, John


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Worsley, Marcus


Stevens, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stodart, J. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mr. Finlay and Mr. MacArthur.

Orders of the Day — SMOKING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. W. Elliott.]

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: This is the second time today that I have had the good fortune to be able to address the House on a small facet of a large problem. On the first occasion, I was well aware that I had only ten minutes in which to speak. About 7.30 this evening, for a glorious quarter of an hour, I thought that I should have unlimited time at my disposal, but I now speak with the usual enemy, time, standing behind my shoulder.
I do not have to convince the House about the facts on the added hazards to health from smoking. These things are common knowledge, but I seek to persuade the Minister for Science that there is urgent need for an increased appreciation of the value of research into the reasons why people smoke, the difficulties they have when they stop smoking, and the whole background to the basic problem of the increasing number of people who are suffering illness because many years ago they contracted the habit of smoking.
The figures which hon. Members keep giving in this Chamber on the subject are becoming and. I gave daily and weekly figures earlier in the Session of the number of deaths from lung cancer. The fact that there were 26,383 last year is sufficiently frightening to make us realise the gravity of the situation. I should like to quote from a Report on "Smoking and Health" by the Surgeon-General of the United States Public Health Service, which was published recently. The Report states on page 302 that
Cigarette smoking is the most important of the causes of chronic bronchitis in the United States …
In this country, 30·8 million days were lost to production through bronchitis, much of which was caused by smoking. From the same Report, page 327: "It is established that male cigarette smokers have a much higher death-rate from coronary diseases." These facts are common knowledge, and I do not

think that the Minister queries them; and in Britain last year we lost 31·3 million days of production through people being absent because of disorders of the circulatory system.
It emerges clearly from the American Report that so much clinical and medical research has been done on the subject that it is no longer necessary to tackle the problem from that angle but there is need for social and psychological research. The Report says that there is overwhelming evidence pointing to the conclusion
that smoking—its beginning, habituation, and occasional discontinuation—is to a large extent psychologically and socially determined.
It is to that area that the Minister should address the minds of people who are engaged in research, because in that area results might be forthcoming.
I would mention to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the kind of thing one comes across if one is a member of a hospital management committee. There is the recent example of a man whom I shall call Michael X, a postman aged 49. A report on him says that
In April, 1963 he developed a hoarse cough, A routine chest X-ray and subsequent special tests showed that he had lung cancer. It was inoperable. He began smoking at about 14, and smoked approximately 15 to 20 cigarettes a day. He married late in life, he had two children, a son aged 2½ and a daughter 1 year old. As his health failed their future support and care caused him much concern. He died within four months.
I have many reports which I cannot give to the House but which I should be only too pleased to give to the Minister. I have a report on a Mr. H, which concludes:
At 69 he is a man who for the last four to five years has been an invalid entirely dependent upon his wife and his medical advisers in his struggle with his shrinking lung capacity and vitality.
It is in these circumstances that the Guardian on 22nd January said:
The proper aim of Government is to reduce the number of deaths caused by the cigarettes that are smoked at present.
I remind the Minister of the statement made on behalf of the Government on 27th June, 1957, when Government policy was laid down. This is the point we have reached by today's debate, and the question now is what kind of action the Government can take in face of all


the existing prejudices and set attitudes on this subject. I would ask, in particular, whether it is possible that by added research into what causes people to smoke and to continue to smoke we might find the answer to the question of how we may find acceptable substitutes.
First, I suggest, that we must have research to find the causes. What happens, for instance, at the stress of adolescence? We all know of the reports which reveal the amount of smoking at school. What serious research is being undertaken into this aspect of the matter, particularly in the light of the fact that it is Government policy to prevent young people smoking?
Next, what can replace the social gesture which, in some way, is of value to the smoker? What are the psychological origins of smoking? A smoker meeting a stranger for the first time is able to offer a cigarette and immediately they are en rapport. What can one do, in overcoming the smoking habit, as a substitute for what seems to be a necessary social gesture? What kind of behaviour patterns should be developed? How far is it habituation and how far is it addiction? What kind of results can be achieved on these factors, and what are the mental and physical consequences of being deprived of smoking?
One particular field of research which calls for attention relates particularly to women and the terrific upset which occurs in a woman who has been a habitual smoker and who, at the time of the menopause, gives up smoking. What evidence do we have of the mental reactions taking place then, with all the other changes going on and the additional stress of trying to give up the smoking habit? Sometimes, of course, the reactions are such that women have to have treatment in the psychiatric wards of our hospitals and in some circumstances it may be a doctor's duty to advise continuation of smoking.
There is, then, the question of occupational needs and urges. The long-distance lorry driver smokes, on average, 30 or 40 cigarettes a day. Why? Is not this a proper subject of research in a study of social behaviour and needs, so that we may make further progress in solving the problem at its root?
How does a person, once having acquired the habit, break it? The Minister of Health told us the other day that there are about 30 anti-smoking clinics established. I have the good fortune to have one in the hospital with which I am connected. How many research assistants has the Minister for Science allocated to look into what is going on? What kind of results are being achieved, and why? What is the assessment of the information gained, and how much exchange of information is there among all the various research units? Does this side of it come under the Minister for Science and the Medical Research Council, or does it come under the Minister of Health?
Why is the only project promoted by the Government promoted by the Central Office of Information which is now studying what happens as a result of stopping the smoking habit? Does the Minister allocate resources to the Central Office of Information for this purpose? How many people are there in the research team at work? What kind of link does this project have with his Ministry and with the Ministry of Health?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave me a reply on 21st January, which I thought quite staggering. He said:
I am quite satisfied that there is adequate research. What I am not sure about is that there are adequate answers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21s January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 905.]
The whole point of research is to find answers. If one knows the answers, one needs no research. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has the wrong approach to the problem. Research is needed in the first place to find out what are the best lines to pursue.
I recall some comments made on the book Science and Politics which the Minister himself wrote. In a review of it, Professor Haddow, one of the outstanding figures in cancer research in this country, said that the Minister in his book
is right in saying that science is not something to which rulers can dictate, that while they can repress or starve it they cannot make it live … While perhaps technically correct, the last argument could be used as a dangerous anodyne for inaction.
I suspect that the Minister is, in fact, suffering from inaction in this matter.
Should not the Minister influence the policy of the Medical Research Council? Or is he adopting the policy of just playing the favourites? Is he putting all the emphasis on projects most likely to succeed? He knows as well as I do that there is an enormous amount of pharmacological research now going on into oral contraceptives. Indeed, the work being done on this subject is probably greater than any other medical research now proceeding; it must be duplicated almost a hundred times. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said so well on the B.B.C. yesterday, the most neglected field of research is that directed to the psychological and mental factors leading to illness. It is precisely in this field that there is need for research in connection with smoking.
We are so often bogged down in a mass of prejudice and argument. I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself has come across this in his own experience. One has a group of people trying to discuss the subject scientifically and rationally, but two hardened smokers among them who have a guilt complex about it feel that they must defend smoking to the last.
We are neglecting this research at a time when stress and nervous strain are, perhaps, presenting the greatest problems in illness which our country faces today. There has been a complete change from the old illnesses to the new. Part of the "brains drain" about which we hear so much results, I suggest, from the rather stultified approach of this Government to research in new and sometimes difficult fields.
I suggest that it is because of the Government's failure to play a positive part in some of these "off-beat" areas that the initiative has been lacking and the areas of need neglected. One such area, I submit, is the one I put to the Minister in the Question which I asked on 21st January, namely, that there is a need for research into the compulsive urges to smoke to find out what people get out of smoking and to examine ways whereby any real needs which emerge can be satisfied in a less harmful way. I hope that the Minister, who I know is not unsympathetic to this cause, will

have second, third and fourth thoughts about ways and means of giving some effect to research in this field.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: We are always interested to hear the views of the people who represent the anti-smoking campaign in this House. It is not for me to deny either their right to put them or, in their opinion, the necessity to put them. I do not wish to be unduly critical about the attitude which they show towards smoking, and especially its effect on health. I wish to complain, as I have done before, that in their fanatical attitude towards smoking they forget other things which, in my opinion, are equally damaging to the human constitution.
I can never understand why they single out this one industry for attack when they never come here and attack the brewers and tell us how many thousands of people—and I have a figure in mind, which I will not quote, because I am not certain that it is accurate—are the victims of alcoholism every year in this country. I believe that it is a very substantial figure. They always quote in aid what is happening in the United States. Anyone who has visited the United States knows quite well that Americans are absolutely obsessed with what I call the three "C"s—capitalism, Communism and cancer—and run a vast campaign in their newspapers sponsored by all sorts of extremely wealthy people. They single out smoking for their line of attack.
These victims, who may never have taken alcohol at all, are, in my judgment, encouraged to take alcohol by what I believe to be advertisements which very often verge on the fraudulent. No attack is ever made on them in this House.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Nonsense.

Mr. Wilkins: This is my complaint about my hon. Friends. They never come here and make complaints of this character. They quote the case of a lorry driver into whom they think research should be made because he smokes thirty cigarettes a day, and they want to know the reason for it. The reason is simple of explanation. It is for the same reason that I smoke a


pipe. I often find it a great companion when I am on my own. I do not know whether other smokers feel the same. It very often relieves monotony.
I wonder to what extent we have a right to try to dictate to people what their habits should be. Why should my hon. Friends tell me that I should not be able to smoke my pipe? It is my business, and it will be my funeral if as a result I kill myself. But surely I have a right to exercise my own judgment about whether it is doing harm to me. I ask my hon. Friends a simple question: why do they want to dictate to other people what they should do, not only with their lives but with their money? If they propose to attack this section of industry in this country, why do not they attack other sections which, in my opinion, are equally lethal?
Many years ago I worked with a gentleman on one of the Bristol newspapers who used to boast to me that every night and lunchtime he had his two pints of beer in the "pub". Saturday night was his great night out. This was the night that he had a real "go" and he had nine pints. He was always demonstrating to me how healthy he was until, as suddenly as a clap of thunder, he found himself in hospital. He had to be operated upon for a very serious condition, and he died. The surgeon said that his kidneys—I think it was his kidneys, but it may have been his liver—had been entirely destroyed.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Are there no breweries in the hon. Member's constituency?

Mr. Wilkins: That is an exceedingly insulting remark when I am trying to put a sincere point of view. If the hon. Member had been here for the rest of the debate his remarks might have been relevant.
I ask my hon. Friend, why does he not attack many other things which are causes of death?

10.31 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science (Mr. Quintin Hogg): I thought that when I answered this debate I should be answering an attack upon the failure either of myself or of one of the Research Councils to

research adequately into the psychological causes of smoking. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) say that he had never heard an attack in this House made upon the brewers or alcoholism. In this reincarnation I am a relatively new Member, but I recall that some years ago things must have been very different. Attacks on alcoholism and brewers were by no means unheard of when I was here before.
I would say to the hon. Member for Bristol, South that the fact that alcohol may do you a lot of harm does not mitigate from the fact that smoking cigarettes undoubtedly does do you a lot of harm too. There is a difference between alcoholism and smoking. The evidence—and—I am simply repeating the evidence of scientists rather than expressing my own opinion—is that even small numbers of cigarettes add appreciably to the risk of a number of pathological conditions, whereas I do not think there is anything like the same evidence against small quantities of alcohol, provided one avoids driving a motor car after having recently imbibed them.

Mr. Wilkins: Why must one do that?

Mr. Hogg: In some people it impairs the judgment, or at any rate appears to do so to other users of the road.
May I return to the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I wish that I could persuade him, although I have apparently failed to do so on two previous occasions, that I am on his side. It is true that all human motivation is a legitimate subject for scientific research, medical research and psychological research, which would be quite within the terms of reference of the Medical Research Council, and for demographic research and social survey, which would and does come under the Central Office of Information. I am sorry that I cannot tell him much about the survey to which he referred, although I have a copy of it in my papers.
This is a legitimate field of research. Let me tell the hon. Member this straight away. If he has a project for research, if he knows of a project for research, if he knows of a promising line of advance, a promising lead as it is called, which is not being adequately pursued, if he knows of a properly designed ex-


periment or series of experiments, which have not been properly examined by the Research Council, I will certainly see that they are examined. And if the Research Council in its scientific judgment backs those projects, I shall be delighted to see that funds are available to pursue them.
But I must make this general point before I pursue some of the other topics which he raised. One does not make out a case for scientific research of any kind simply by establishing the social relevance and desirability of knowing the answers. One must find a person who is interested in carrying out that research. One must find a promising lead and must have a reasonable prospect—not a certainty but a reasonable prospect—of an advance in knowledge what that particular set of experiments is likely to achieve. It must, of course, be fitted inside a properly balanced and integrated programme of research devised by the Research Council. That is why we have the Research Council.
The hon. Member asked me whether I always take its opinions as gospel. Of course the answer is "No". I belong to an extremely sceptical profession. But the whole tradition of the Research Council as it has developed over 50 years, devised by very prominent members of the party opposite, such as Lord Haldane and Lord Addison, has been that the Minister on the whole does not bring political pressure to bear on matters on which the Council's scientific judgment is definite.
I tell the hon. Member frankly that I have not only had first and second thoughts, but third and fourth thoughts as well, because each time he has raised the matter I have raised it again with the Council, and the Council has been round conscientiously today to all the leading psychiatrists it can find, but its scientific judgment remains the same, namely that the level of research is adequate. Although I still say that the answers are not altogether happy, and although I would agree with the hon. Member that the absence of answers is no conclusive reason why one should not research, I say that some hope of an advance in knowledge is at any rate a prerequisite before one has very much

reason to override a scientific judgment which says it is not worth researching.
I think that the hon. Member has to some extent underestimated the amount which is known about this, partly by common sense and partly by actual scientific work which has been done. The Report of the Royal College of Physicians lists a bibliography of about 30 different items in this field, some of the most distinguished done in this country, on the subject of smoking and its motivation and the way of giving it up. The American report lists about 39 items, many of them the same, some of the work done under the auspices of the Medical Research Council, some done under various other auspices.
I am afraid that some of the answers are a trifle obvious. This is the point upon which I should like to leave the subject this evening. We must always be careful, however much we may be in favour of scientific research, never to use it as an alibi for not acting. I was extremely grateful to the tobacco manufacturers for putting at the service of cancer research a large sum of money. I was less grateful when it was used in another place as a reason for not accepting the Report of the Royal College of Physicians and not taking action upon the assumption that it was true.
In this matter of smoking and what motivates smoking, a number of facts are known. It is as well that we should remember what they are. In the first place, the power of example is enormous. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Bristol, South to say that it is really my business if I choose to adopt a deleterious habit. That in a sense is perfectly true. But the power of example is enormous. Twenty thousand people die of lung cancer every year, I do not know how many of bronchitis and a lot of coronary thrombosis, all of them states with which smoking cigarettes is associated. This is done very largely by the power of example. Smoking is a vice, if that is the right word—I use it in no pejorative sense; it is a common term in this sense—of initiation. One starts because somebody shows one. It is idle to pretend that we do not owe a duty to our fellow creatures to refrain from doing it as much as we can.
One of the facts which these very learned surveys establish is that children whose parents smoke, and presumably whose teachers smoke, are much more likely to learn to do this than any other children. Also, it is very much more difficult—this is a scientific fact—to give it up when one has learned young than when one has learned old. It is a social habit. The pressures to smoke are social pressures. After all, we know very well—I think that this appears in one of the learned disquisitions—that cigarettes were invented only about 100 years ago. Before then people had to do without them. I do not discount and I do not endorse the various ingenious psychological theories about infantile memories and other even more exciting possibilities. But the essence of smoking is that it is a social habit. It has to be learned.
No one smoked cigarettes much before the First World War, and then it was the combination of fear and boredom—the accompaniments of war in the trenches—that led me to smoke. Women did not smoke very much until between the wars, and then I have no doubt that it was the force of advertisements aimed at women that led it to be regarded as a socially acceptable habit. It was not a socially acceptable habit in women before, and was hardly a socially acceptable habit in men.
All this that I have been saying is very obvious, but we have to face the fact that the decisions, although difficult, all revolve around the question: how far in a free society are we entitled

and bound to create an atmosphere in which smoking cigarettes, which has hitherto been socially acceptable, is no longer a socially acceptable habit? It is a political question, and it is not for me to answer this tonight. I doubt whether members of any one political party would answer the question in the same way.
When I came into the Cabinet Room after having made a speech on this subject in another place, the then Prime Minister pointed to me, after £25 million had gone off share values on the Stock Exchange, and said, "The biggest 'bear' in history." I am a non-smoker speaking in a Parliament of smokers and in a Cabinet of smokers, and with an electorate of smokers. Many people take the view of the hon. Member for Bristol, South that we have to make up our own minds about these things. I find it easier to condemn smoking because I gave it up a long time ago.
At the same time, I will promise on behalf of the Research Councils that there is no research which their scientific judgment endorses that I will not back up. This I will promise, but I am also quite confident that we know enough about the scientific and social basis of smoking to realise that the issues of policy we have to face are not scientific problems.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.